From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 2 15:35:18 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:35:18 -0500 Subject: Fw: Omaha language Message-ID: Folks, This is a note I received from someone, presumably an Omaha, who was inquiring or complaining about someone -- I'm not sure which. Above the original message is my reply to her. Anyone know her or who she might be talking about? I thought it was possible she might be with the group that fellow from NY was representing at the Siouan Conference in Bloomington. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: R. Rankin To: Colleen Flores Cc: Bob Rankin Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Omaha language > Hi, > > I received your note. I'm not sure what web site you > were looking at, nor do I know what Omaha tribal > members and/or linguists you're troubled by. My own > work is mostly with the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma. The > Kaws spoke a language very much like Omaha and Ponca, > so I generally find any publication on Omaha to be very > helpful to me in my own work. As you say, every little > bit helps, and having something is better than nothing > at all. > > All of the linguists studying the Omaha language that I > know are very interested in working with the Omaha > people and would be more than happy to try to help out > in any way they could those individuals you describe > with degrees in education. I think all you'd have to > do is contact them. People who know languages with > relatively few speakers almost always argue a bit among > themselves over the meanings of words and correctness > of grammar and pronunciation. It is natural that each > of us follows the usage of our own family elders. > There's nothing wrong with this -- language is always > changing bit by bit and meanings and usage do vary from > family to family and person to person. This is just as > true of English as it is of Omaha actually. What is > important is that groups like the Omahas get together > and work these little problems out in a friendly > manner. If they split into factions, it just becomes > that much harder to preserve the language and teach it > successfully. And as we all know, learning a language > isn't all that easy to begin with! > > I will pass your message along to Ardis Eschenberg, > Catherine Rudin and John Koontz, all of whom have > academic interests in the Omaha language and people. > > Best wishes, > > Bob Rankin > Linguistics Department > University of Kansas > Lawrence, KS 66044 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Colleen Flores > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:05 AM > Subject: Omaha language > > > > I just came across the web. I am disappointed that > the real people of > > the OMAHA have not been included in the credits of > the Omaha language. > > We have excellent people who have BS. Degrees in > Education, whom I know > > personally that are disappointed in what is being > written and published > > without full consent of the real PEOPLE who speak and > use the daily in > > the home. None of these people have use the language > on a daily basis. > > > > > > The dictionary by Swetland is somewhat of a slang > usage. Numerous > > meanings have been omitted. > > But this is better than not having anything to work > with. If sir, you > > have any material available to share with me I would > appreciate it. > > I do know Mr. Swetland personally, right now he is > recovering from > > surgery. I like to explore any information > pertaining to the Omaha > > language. > > Colleen Flores Omaha > > cflores at unihc.com > > fax(402)43-7180 > > From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jul 2 18:01:15 2002 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Sweltand) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:01:15 -0700 Subject: Omaha language Message-ID: 02 July 2002 Aloha All: Colleen Webster Flores is a member of the Omaha Tribe... and one of my granddaughters. Isn't it "refreshing" in a Machiavellian way to be blindsided by one of your own relatives? I do not know which website she is refering to (perhaps brother John Koontz's?) ... nor do I know the NY fellow Bob mentions. Language ownership, control, and the presumption of financial gains to be garnered by such control routinely surfaces as a topic of debate at Macy. Naturally all of us scholars are filthy rich by our ill-gotten gains from ripped-off indigenous languages... we just hide the wealth, enit? I will email Colleen directly and inquire for details about the website and her concerns. best Uthixide Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Anthropology/Native American Studies University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: "Siouan list" Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:35 AM Subject: Fw: Omaha language > Folks, > > This is a note I received from someone, presumably an > Omaha, who was inquiring or complaining about > someone -- I'm not sure which. Above the original > message is my reply to her. Anyone know her or who she > might be talking about? I thought it was possible she > might be with the group that fellow from NY was > representing at the Siouan Conference in Bloomington. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: R. Rankin > To: Colleen Flores > Cc: Bob Rankin > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: Omaha language > > > > Hi, > > > > I received your note. I'm not sure what web site you > > were looking at, nor do I know what Omaha tribal > > members and/or linguists you're troubled by. My own > > work is mostly with the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma. The > > Kaws spoke a language very much like Omaha and Ponca, > > so I generally find any publication on Omaha to be > very > > helpful to me in my own work. As you say, every > little > > bit helps, and having something is better than > nothing > > at all. > > > > All of the linguists studying the Omaha language that > I > > know are very interested in working with the Omaha > > people and would be more than happy to try to help > out > > in any way they could those individuals you describe > > with degrees in education. I think all you'd have to > > do is contact them. People who know languages with > > relatively few speakers almost always argue a bit > among > > themselves over the meanings of words and correctness > > of grammar and pronunciation. It is natural that > each > > of us follows the usage of our own family elders. > > There's nothing wrong with this -- language is always > > changing bit by bit and meanings and usage do vary > from > > family to family and person to person. This is just > as > > true of English as it is of Omaha actually. What is > > important is that groups like the Omahas get together > > and work these little problems out in a friendly > > manner. If they split into factions, it just becomes > > that much harder to preserve the language and teach > it > > successfully. And as we all know, learning a > language > > isn't all that easy to begin with! > > > > I will pass your message along to Ardis Eschenberg, > > Catherine Rudin and John Koontz, all of whom have > > academic interests in the Omaha language and people. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Bob Rankin > > Linguistics Department > > University of Kansas > > Lawrence, KS 66044 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Colleen Flores > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:05 AM > > Subject: Omaha language > > > > > > > I just came across the web. I am disappointed that > > the real people of > > > the OMAHA have not been included in the credits of > > the Omaha language. > > > We have excellent people who have BS. Degrees in > > Education, whom I know > > > personally that are disappointed in what is being > > written and published > > > without full consent of the real PEOPLE who speak > and > > use the daily in > > > the home. None of these people have use the > language > > on a daily basis. > > > > > > > > > The dictionary by Swetland is somewhat of a slang > > usage. Numerous > > > meanings have been omitted. > > > But this is better than not having anything to work > > with. If sir, you > > > have any material available to share with me I > would > > appreciate it. > > > I do know Mr. Swetland personally, right now he is > > recovering from > > > surgery. I like to explore any information > > pertaining to the Omaha > > > language. > > > Colleen Flores Omaha > > > cflores at unihc.com > > > fax(402)43-7180 > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 2 17:11:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:11:46 -0600 Subject: Fw: Omaha language In-Reply-To: <005101c221de$1288b280$e2b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: I'm not sure what this is about either, though I suspect it might refer to my web site. If it doesn't, I'd be interested to know what web site it does refer to. I wonder if it's about the list of links to other Siouanist sites that I included. I'd be glad to add additional links to that, or even regular addresses for people who are working on Omaha or other Siouan languages. I certainly don't claim any credit for Omaha or Ponca, which happened beatifully without any help from me. On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > Folks, > > This is a note I received from someone, presumably an > Omaha, who was inquiring or complaining about > someone -- I'm not sure which. Above the original > message is my reply to her. Anyone know her or who she > might be talking about? I thought it was possible she > might be with the group that fellow from NY was > representing at the Siouan Conference in Bloomington. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: R. Rankin > To: Colleen Flores > Cc: Bob Rankin > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: Omaha language > > > > Hi, > > > > I received your note. I'm not sure what web site you > > were looking at, nor do I know what Omaha tribal > > members and/or linguists you're troubled by. My own > > work is mostly with the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma. The > > Kaws spoke a language very much like Omaha and Ponca, > > so I generally find any publication on Omaha to be > very > > helpful to me in my own work. As you say, every > little > > bit helps, and having something is better than > nothing > > at all. > > > > All of the linguists studying the Omaha language that > I > > know are very interested in working with the Omaha > > people and would be more than happy to try to help > out > > in any way they could those individuals you describe > > with degrees in education. I think all you'd have to > > do is contact them. People who know languages with > > relatively few speakers almost always argue a bit > among > > themselves over the meanings of words and correctness > > of grammar and pronunciation. It is natural that > each > > of us follows the usage of our own family elders. > > There's nothing wrong with this -- language is always > > changing bit by bit and meanings and usage do vary > from > > family to family and person to person. This is just > as > > true of English as it is of Omaha actually. What is > > important is that groups like the Omahas get together > > and work these little problems out in a friendly > > manner. If they split into factions, it just becomes > > that much harder to preserve the language and teach > it > > successfully. And as we all know, learning a > language > > isn't all that easy to begin with! > > > > I will pass your message along to Ardis Eschenberg, > > Catherine Rudin and John Koontz, all of whom have > > academic interests in the Omaha language and people. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Bob Rankin > > Linguistics Department > > University of Kansas > > Lawrence, KS 66044 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Colleen Flores > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:05 AM > > Subject: Omaha language > > > > > > > I just came across the web. I am disappointed that > > the real people of > > > the OMAHA have not been included in the credits of > > the Omaha language. > > > We have excellent people who have BS. Degrees in > > Education, whom I know > > > personally that are disappointed in what is being > > written and published > > > without full consent of the real PEOPLE who speak > and > > use the daily in > > > the home. None of these people have use the > language > > on a daily basis. > > > > > > > > > The dictionary by Swetland is somewhat of a slang > > usage. Numerous > > > meanings have been omitted. > > > But this is better than not having anything to work > > with. If sir, you > > > have any material available to share with me I > would > > appreciate it. > > > I do know Mr. Swetland personally, right now he is > > recovering from > > > surgery. I like to explore any information > > pertaining to the Omaha > > > language. > > > Colleen Flores Omaha > > > cflores at unihc.com > > > fax(402)43-7180 > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 2 20:06:06 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:06:06 -0500 Subject: Fw: Omaha language Message-ID: I can't figure why she'd write me if it was your website she was looking at. Maybe she was looking at the KU website and found me. I certainly don't have anything posted on Omaha though. Or maybe she found the SSILA web site and the lists of people interested in different languages. She used my old email address -- actually about 3 addresses back, so it's an older source. As I told Mark, sometimes people just feel "left out" and if they get invited to participate, they're happy. That's what I basically tried to signal in my reply to her. I leave it to the 4 or 5 of you to do what you wish about contacting her. BTW I will not have email service over July 4th. KU is "upgrading" email service then. Har de har har. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan list Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Omaha language > I'm not sure what this is about either, though I suspect it might refer to > my web site. .... From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Jul 3 22:49:00 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:49:00 EDT Subject: ?uN as AUX V. Message-ID: There is an "a" that occurs in Crow between a main verb and a conjoined continuative auxiliary, e.g.: huu-a-lawi'-k come-A-continue-DECL 'he kept coming, he was coming along' It also shows up in Hidatsa, and Mandan has a ha: 'simultaneous'. Could these be related to uN? It's hard to know when you are dealing with such short morphemes. Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 3 23:42:07 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:42:07 -0600 Subject: ?uN as AUX V. In-Reply-To: <117.13e707df.2a54d95c@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > There is an "a" that occurs in Crow between a main verb and a conjoined > continuative auxiliary, e.g.: huu-a-lawi'-k > come-A-continue-DECL > 'he kept coming, he was coming along' > > It also shows up in Hidatsa, and Mandan has a ha: 'simultaneous'. Could > these be related to uN? It's hard to know when you are dealing with such > short morphemes. I think the vowel would still be nasalized in Mandan, unless it was borrowed from Crow-Hidatsa. But the Mandan form sounds like it is used somewhat differently from the Crow-Hidatsa -a-. Siouan is fairly full of cases of linking -a-. This is part of the ablaut / epenthetic vowel problem. Perhaps it is relevant that Dhegiha also has something like a linking -a- with continuatives. Specifically, the proximate article forms akha and ama (or apa ~ aba, etc.) have that initial a- and also function as continuative markers (agreeing with the class of a proximate subject). JEK From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jul 5 18:25:16 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:25:16 -0500 Subject: ?uN as AUX V. Message-ID: Hard to say, isn't it? I also remember a few cases at least where Dakota had a nasal -aN at the end of certain verbs, but I think other subgroups had an oral vowel there. In these instances I'm wordering if we're dealing with a lexicalized reflex of -?uN that reduced to -aN when unaccented and affixed. This is why I said I thought this was a dissertation topic! The syntax/morphotactics of some of these vowels may give clues.... Bob >There is an "a" that occurs in Crow between a main verb and a conjoined continuative auxiliary, e.g.: huu-a-lawi'-k come-A-continue-DECL 'he kept coming, he was coming along' It also shows up in Hidatsa, and Mandan has a ha: 'simultaneous'. Could these be related to uN? It's hard to know when you are dealing with such short morphemes. Randy From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Sat Jul 6 19:44:21 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:44:21 -0500 Subject: Omaha language Message-ID: I think I've met Colleen Webster (Flores). The name certainly rings a bell, though maybe it's just because I've had so many other Websters in my classes in Macy... I'm glad Mark will contact her. I myself plan to keep out of it as much as possible, unless she calls or writes me (which she is of course welcome to do -- Mark or anyone else who talks to her should feel free to pass on my address etc.) I'm afraid I'm probably perceived on the reservation as someone who has no apparent reason to be interested in the language but inexplicably keeps popping up; teaching a class, coming around asking questions ... no doubt one of those outsiders getting rich off ill-gotten knowledge, as Mark says. It might do more harm than good for me to go pushing myself in here. I know at least a couple of students have been resentful that I knew more Omaha than they did. There's a lot of frustration by people who feel like they ought to know "their own language"... The web site could be anything. Maybe searching for Omaha language she ran across the site of some conference where one of us gave a paper, or someone's vita on a university site, or one of the Linguist List "does any language do this" queries that John has answered with Omaha data. Who knows! A little web access is a dangerous thing. About the mysterious "NY fellow" -- could Bob mean "the NE fellow", i.e. Richard Chilton? He did show up at one meeting, perhaps the Bloomington one -- I haven't heard anything of him or his partner Margery Coffey in a couple of years. Anyhow, this is mostly just to signal you guys that I'm following the discussion but don't intend to do anything. Bob's letter was an excellent, diplomatic response; hopefully she'll feel less "left out" now. Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 7 07:11:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 01:11:21 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht on 'Nouns and Verbs in Hochank (Winnebago)' Message-ID: I'm probably not the only member of the list who noticed Johannes Helbrecht's article in IJAL 68.1 on Winnebago parts of speech? This is, of course, of general interest to all Siouanists, and, even if the Hochank have done a very good job of being different I don't think any non-specialists in Winnebago among us (which would be just about everybody, sadly) are going to find the details obscure. Johannes takes of the problem of distinguishing nouns from verbs in Winnebago, and concludes that 'The semantics of hypothetical noun words alone is not a reliable way to determine their status. However, words that are close to the semantic prototype of nouns are likely to be classified as nouns in Hochank. Evidence of their syntactic category must be found in their morphosyntactic behavior.' The problem is mainly that nouns have essentially no morphologically characterizing behavior, and the morphological behavior that characterizes verbs includes a large number of forms that semantics, or at least analogy with English and other European languages, would consider to be nouns. Johannes also specifically points out that independent of the question of morphological characteristic various forms listed in the available Winnebago dictionaries are double listed as both nouns and verbs, e.g., niNiNha' 'to breathe, to chant' and 'breathing, breath, throat'. (Incidentally, this (1) and the next example (2) that he lists accidentally label the v.'s as n.'s and the n's as v.'s.) You'll probably notice some analogies with the questions that Bruce Ingham was tackling recently in IJAL for Teton, and also that the answers aren't always the same in different Siouan languages, though the basic problem is certainly familiar, namely how do you tell a noun from a verb if (a) nouns have no nominal morphology [Verbs have the possobility though not always the necessity of being a bit better equipped, morphologically.] (b) roots that feel like nouns can often be used verbally, with no derivational morphology and precious little inflectional morphology, and, especially, (c) it appears to be possible to treat any clause (from a verb root on up to a multi-word construction) as a noun, usually without any nominalizing morphology. It's true that there is often an article or something of that ilk following the nominalized things, but a little further inspection generally reveals that this is only there when it's needed to mark definiteness (or whatever other ilk-iness is relevant). I have a number of questions and comments on this article, but I think, in the interest of making any discussion that arises manageable, I'll try to put them in separate letters. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 8 03:09:35 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:09:35 -0600 Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' Message-ID: Lipkind (1945:17) refers to the Winnebago prefix wa- 'which probably means 'something' or 'thing' ... [and] is used to make transitive verbs intransitive and to form nouns out of active and stative verbs' as the 'modal prefix'. Johannes says 'this is definitely a misnomer', and I'd certainly agree if I thought Lipkind had anything like the contemporary sense of modal in mind. This prefix definitely has nothing to do with concepts like ability, possibility, obligation and the like. However, I've always assumed that Lipkind had in mind here either an old usage of modal or some idiosyncratic usage of his own, in which modal was an adjective meaning 'having to do with modes' and distinctions like transitive vs. intransitive or verb vs. noun (and perhas also indicative vs. subjunctive) were conceived of as different modes of signification. Does anyone know of such a usage? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 8 05:40:38 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:40:38 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: Johannes Helmbrecht (2002:7) says of Winnebago wa- (which is a pretty standard pan-Mississippi Valley or even pan-Siouan wa-) that it has three uses: '(a) it may be translated as 'something' etymologically deriving from the indefinite pronoun waz^aN 'something', (b) it functions as a detransitivizer, and (c) it may it is the third person plural object pronoun 'them' of transitive verbs.' The first and second categories seem essentially the same to me, though (b) is put in more technical, if more limited, terms. If I had to take a stab at it, and I guess we all do, from time to time, I'd say something like wa- eliminates the patient argument, where patient is to be understood in Siouan, not universalist terms. [This last qualification is something that Carolyn Quintero always points out if I don't.] We do usually think of wa- as detransitivizing with transitive verbs, but that doesn't help much with the business of deriving nouns from intransitive verbs, because if a transitive verb makes a perfectly good nominal, with or without wa-, as it generally does, it's not clear why a stative intransitive verb would require detransitivization or even "patient argument satisfying" to make a noun of it. And that applies in spades with active intransitives, of course. This is where (a) helps, because we can fall back on a notion that wa- is a morpheme that translates as 'something that ...s' or 'something that is ...' or 'it ...s something', and so on. I guess we're saying informally that wa- marks derivations that have 'something' as head? I've suggested in the past, without really pursuing it, that maybe what wa- really does is mark a sort of focus or orientation toward a particular argument. I think this is really tantamount to 'derivations with something as head', i.e., "focus" = headedness. Another way to think of it is to treat wa- as a sort of incorporated noun. So rather than wa- with transitives meaning 'the object is irrelevant - we don't care what it is' it means 'we know what the object is, so we don't need to mention it explicitly'. This is not detransitivization in the sense of eliminating an argument. It is detransitivization in the sense of satisfying the argument from the context. So when the cryer at an Omaha feast says wathatHe ga ho 'eat!' he doesn't mean 'eat [anything at all]' or 'engage in the activity of eating', he means 'eat [the stuff provided]' or 'eat [this stuff right here]'. In short, 'something-eat' or 'stuff-eat' not just 'eat'. And with intransitive verbs rendered into nouns you get '[the thing that] x-es' or '[the thing that is] x'. Using some of Lipkind's examples, more or less adapted to modern orthography: ruu'c^ 'to eat it' waru'c^ not 'eat' but actually 'eat the food' dee'x 'to urinate' (also 'urine') wade'x 'bladder', i.e., 'the thing that urinates' s^iNiN' 'be fat[ty]', was^iN' 'fat', i.e., 'that which is fatty' Incidentally, I thought I was being greatly daring in my SACC paper in putting the accent mark on Winnebago long vowels on the second vowel character, but I see that Johannes is doing this, too. I heartily approve. ---- When Johannes derives wa- from waz^aN' 'something', I htink he's going a bit far. Lipkind himself suggests that waz^aN' is from wa- + hiz^aN INDEF ART. Actually, we can be pretty sure from the wide distribution of wa- in Siouan, and the lack of wide distribution of -z^aN or of waz^aN' or even of hiz^aN' that wa- is just wa-, and waz^aN and hiz^aN are artifacts of Winnebago (or of Winnebago-Chiwere). Bob Rankin actually considers that hiz^aN is connected with the various extended forms of 'one' used in counting in Mississippi Valley. It is possible that waz^aN' is derived from wa- plus z^aN, less likely that it's derived from wa- plus hiz^aN' as Lipkind suggests. Johannes also suggests in a footnote that the third function of wa- in Winnebago, the marking of the third person object with transitive verbs, is 'a further step in the grammaticalization of this form' and that comparative Siouan evidence for this needs to be obtained. In fact, it has been, though with the usual Siouanist obscurity. The use of wa- as a third person patient plural with transitive verbs is general in Mississippi Valley Siouan, except for Dakotan, where wic^ha- occurs as its vicar, to borrow a term from ecology (not to mention the Church). For example: OP JOD 1890:17.17-18 nikashiNga enoN=xti wa'thatHa= bi=ama human beings only really they ate them PL QT they ate nothing but human beings Here the wa'- is 'them' - it's accented with verbs in th (*r). It's an interesting question whether the wic^ha- situation in Dakotan should be seen as an alternative to the wa- situation in Winnebago, Ioway-Otoe, and Dhegiha, or as a replacement of it. And on the answer to this turns a great part of the question of the timing of the extension of wa- to third person plurals. I would, however, say that it is an extension, just as Johannes suggests. It doesn't occur in this way outside of Mississippi Valley, not even in Mandan or Tutelo, as far as I know. I have the distinct impression that in OP one gets more mileage out of considering that the category 'third person plural object' is filled with the wa-form of the verb stem than from considering that there is a pronominal prefix wa- separate from the 'modal prefix' wa-. For one thing, both wa-morphemes engage in the same set of contractions with other things. Also, both condition the extraposition of the first person agent, first person patient, and inclusive agent markers to a position before wa-, and the morphosyntactic location of both wa-morphemes is the same. ----- One other note on wa-. Johannes says (2002:7) that Lipkind doesn't mention wii- < wa-hi-, i.e., wa- plus the *i-locative. He certainly doesn't make much of a deal of it, but it is is mentioned in passing, on p. 17 in the section Modal Prefix, last paragraph, and on p. 26, in the section on contractions of prefixes, under '(c) Verbs with the prefix hi contract:' I can understand how that could be overlooked, as there is no development of the notion, and as anyone who's used Lipkind knows, the table of contents of the volume has the form: Phonology 1 Morphology 12 Text 58 Notes for Text 62 There is no index, everything is excessively concise, the typeface is horrible, and the orthography somewhat idiosyncratic. It's not as hard to work with as Marten's dissertation, however. Charactersitically for the time, it also has essentially nothing on syntax, though there is a section on Word Order (three paragraphs, pp. 56-57), so perhaps "Syntax 56" might be added to the table of contents. JEK From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Jul 8 08:53:47 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:53:47 -0700 Subject: Algonquian List Message-ID: The Algonquian List appears to be set up. I asked them to change the name to something more recognisable, but it's been 4 weeks, so I'm assuming the answer is no. If for some reason that changes, I'll let you all know. To send messages to the list: alfl at uvvm.uvic.ca To send commands to the server: listserve at uvvm.uvic.ca LISTSERV Commands on UVVM All of the following commands are e-mailed to listserv at uvvm.uvic.ca The subject line is left blank (will be ignored) and, in the body of the mail, any of the following commands can be entered. Multiple commands can be in a single mail message. Minimum abbreviations and required fields are in UPPERCASE. General User Commands SUBscribe - the command used to add your ID to a list: SUBscribe ALFL FirstName LastName For example, SUB ALFL Chris Cringle SIGNOFF - the command used to cancel your list subscription: SIGNOFF ALFL For example, SIGNOFF ALFL REVIEW - the command used to see who else is subscribed and review the list settings: REView [LISTNAME] For example, REV ALFL LIST - will provide a list of lists available either at that site or globally. For example, to get a list of lists on UVVM, enter LIST For example, to get a list of all public LISTSERV lists on the network, enter LIST GLOBAL I've added these people who either expressed interest or asked to be subscribed. ahartley at d.umn.edu Alan Hartley Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Anthony Grant enichol4 at attbi.com Eric Nicholson john.koontz at colorado.edu John Koontz When you are added, you will get a long list of instructions and a welcome. In there is a paragraph saying that this group is confidential. Ignore that. It's part of the form letter, and although I asked them to remove it, it's still there. Shannon From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Mon Jul 8 15:37:27 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:37:27 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: John wrote: >Johannes Helmbrecht (2002:7) says of Winnebago wa- (which is a pretty standard pan-Mississippi Valley or even pan-Siouan wa-) that it has three uses: '(a) it may be translated as 'something' etymologically deriving from the indefinite pronoun waz^aN 'something', (b) it functions as a detransitivizer, and (c) it may it is the third person plural object pronoun 'them' of transitive verbs.' Seems to me in all three cases wa- is/replaces an argument, indefinite but generally identifiable in context ... In my sloppy way, in trying to make sense of Omaha I mentally translate wa- as "stuff" and it just about always works... In short, I basically agree with John. Catherine From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jul 8 16:08:57 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:08:57 -0500 Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' Message-ID: I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". To me, voice is what the more current notion of "valence" is all about. I'm surprised at the 'to eat' and 'to eat the food' pair, since I'd have expected sort of the reverse meanings. The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) to just mean something like 'to go around eating' -- the wa- ought to take away the object. My mistake I guess. Are you sure there's only one wa-? As usual I suspect homophony here. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:09 PM Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' > Lipkind (1945:17) refers to the Winnebago prefix wa- 'which probably means > 'something' or 'thing' ... [and] is used to make transitive verbs > intransitive and to form nouns out of active and stative verbs' as the > 'modal prefix'. Johannes says 'this is definitely a misnomer', and I'd > certainly agree if I thought Lipkind had anything like the contemporary > sense of modal in mind. This prefix definitely has nothing to do with > concepts like ability, possibility, obligation and the like. However, > I've always assumed that Lipkind had in mind here either an old usage of > modal or some idiosyncratic usage of his own, in which modal was an > adjective meaning 'having to do with modes' and distinctions like > transitive vs. intransitive or verb vs. noun (and perhas also indicative > vs. subjunctive) were conceived of as different modes of signification. > Does anyone know of such a usage? > > JEK > From strechter at csuchico.edu Mon Jul 8 19:36:26 2002 From: strechter at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:36:26 -0700 Subject: Ken Hale Prize Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting. Nominations solicited for the Ken Hale Prize ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SSILA's Ken Hale Prize, being inaugurated this year, is presented annually in recognition of outstanding community language work and a deep commitment to the documentation, preservation and reclamation of indigenous languages in the Americas. The Prize (which carries a small monetary stipend and is not to be confused with the LSA's Kenneth Hale Book Award) will honor those who strive to link the academic and community spheres in the spirit of Ken Hale, and recipients will range from native speakers and community-based linguists to academic specialists, and may include groups or organizations. No academic affiliation is necessary. Nominations for the award may be made by anyone, and should include a letter of nomination stating the current position and affiliation (tribal, organizational, or academic) of the nominee or nominated group, and a summary of the nominee's background and contributions to specific language communities. The nominator should also submit a brief port- folio of supporting materials, such as the nominee's curriculum vitae, a description of completed or on-going activities of the nominee, letters from those who are most familiar with the work of the nominee (e.g. language program staff, community people, academic associates), and any other material that would support the nomination. Submission of manuscript-length work is discouraged. The nomination packet should be sent to the chair of the Committee: Sara Trechter Linguistics Program/English Department California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0830 Inquiries can be e-mailed to Sara Trechter at (strechter at csuchico.edu). The deadline for receipt of nominations has been extended to October 15, 2002. The 2002 Ken Hale Prize will be announced at the next annual meeting of SSILA, in Atlanta, in January 2003. The other members of this year's selection committee are Randolph Graczyk and Nora England. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 8 23:28:54 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:28:54 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: <006801c22699$c4e3a420$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". To me, voice > is what the more current notion of "valence" is all about. I'm > surprised at the 'to eat' and 'to eat the food' pair, since I'd have > expected sort of the reverse meanings. The verb 'eat' ordinarily > implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect waruuc (or waaruc or whatever > it is) to just mean something like 'to go around eating' -- the wa- > ought to take away the object. My mistake I guess. Are you sure > there's only one wa-? As usual I suspect homophony here. I suspect Bob is replying to the quibbles post, rather than the terminological post, when he comments on the 'eat something' gloss. This raises an interesting procedural point that I've noticed in the past. In glossing transitive verbs, e.g., 'eat', I tend to write something like: ruu'c^ vt. 'to eat something' (Bob's 'eat SOMEthing') The subject argument is implicit, the 'something' indicates that this verb has/makes/requires an object reference. An actual sentence like ruu'c^-s^aNnaN would be 'he ate it'. On the other hand, with a detransitivized verb I'd write: waru'c^ va. 'to eat' In other words, I'd use just 'eat' to suggest use without an implicit object. And, an actual sentence like waru'c^-s^aNnaN would be glossed 'he ate' or 'he ate something', with the something intended to emphasize the lack of an explicit argument. The weirdness is that including 'something' in the gloss in the lexicon emphasizes transitivity, while including 'something' in the gloss in a text or interlinear situation emphasizes detransitivization. This bothers me a bit, but I think we're doomed to things like this when dealing with incommensurate systems. Anyway, I should emphasize that the additional twist of suggesting that wa- forms involve not the absence of an argument (usually object), but the indication of a contextually implicit argument, is mine. Lipkind offers a pretty straightforward account, and the glosses I included were mine, not his. From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 9 02:48:33 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:48:33 -0400 Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: <006801c22699$c4e3a420$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: Ok, I admit that I don't have the article (we just moved and if I got it before moving, Rob packed it (where?!!!) or it just hasn't been forwarded yet) but I think of wa and non-wa marked verbs (in Omaha anyway) as activity versus accomplishment (or active-accomplishment) (a la Van Valin and LaPolla or, originally, Vendler's aktionsart). Many accomplishment verbs (no wa added) become activities when the wa is added. There are also verbs which are basic activites which don't need the wa added to make them so. I can't remember the verb and can't find my notes of course but I got one nice example this year of a verb I expected to function as activity-active accomplishment but turned out to not take wa. Doubt this sheds any light, but it works very consistently and avoid calling this phenomenon voice or mode (Mode is way overused anyway). Regards, Ardis On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". > To me, voice is what the more current notion of > "valence" is all about. I'm surprised at the 'to eat' > and 'to eat the food' pair, since I'd have expected > sort of the reverse meanings. The verb 'eat' > ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) to just mean > something like 'to go around eating' -- the wa- ought > to take away the object. My mistake I guess. Are you > sure there's only one wa-? As usual I suspect > homophony here. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Koontz John E > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:09 PM > Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' > > > > Lipkind (1945:17) refers to the Winnebago prefix wa- > 'which probably means > > 'something' or 'thing' ... [and] is used to make > transitive verbs > > intransitive and to form nouns out of active and > stative verbs' as the > > 'modal prefix'. Johannes says 'this is definitely a > misnomer', and I'd > > certainly agree if I thought Lipkind had anything > like the contemporary > > sense of modal in mind. This prefix definitely has > nothing to do with > > concepts like ability, possibility, obligation and > the like. However, > > I've always assumed that Lipkind had in mind here > either an old usage of > > modal or some idiosyncratic usage of his own, in > which modal was an > > adjective meaning 'having to do with modes' and > distinctions like > > transitive vs. intransitive or verb vs. noun (and > perhas also indicative > > vs. subjunctive) were conceived of as different modes > of signification. > > Does anyone know of such a usage? > > > > JEK > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 03:49:55 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:49:55 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote: > Doubt this sheds any light, but it works very consistently and avoid > calling this phenomenon voice or mode (Mode is way overused anyway). > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > > I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". > > To me, voice is what the more current notion of > > "valence" is all about. Just in case there's any doubt, I'm not actually suggesting that we start (or resume) calling wa- the modal prefix. I was just wondering if anyone had encountered any precedent for this unusual usage. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 04:04:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:04:27 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Note: I've been carefully restoring the -m in Helmbrecht as penance for omitting it originally. On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote: > ... I think of wa and non-wa marked verbs (in Omaha anyway) as > activity versus accomplishment (or active-accomplishment) ... Many > accomplishment verbs (no wa added) become activities when the wa is > added. There are also verbs which are basic activites which don't > need the wa added to make them so. ... I'm sorry the example of the verb unexpectedly not taking wa- to form an activity verb is misplaced (activity). I hope it turns up again (accomplishment)... I seem to recall that Carolyn Quintero has examples of verbs that take both wa- and an explicit nominal object in Osage. I've done les reading of Van Valin and LaPolla than perhaps I should have - none in fact - and I'm not in a position to quickly remedy that. I'm wondering if activity verbs are inherently intransitive or accomplishment verbs inherently transitive? Speaking in a non-technical sense, I can see, for example, where wa- = activity would work to explain the class of wa-statives, e.g., washushe 'be brave', wakHega 'be sick', etc. At least the latter is also nicely handled by treating wa- as a stand in for thing in which the illness resides, taking the approach that most of the wa-statives are experiencer verbs, agreeing with the experiencer as a patient. I'll admit that that approach doesn't seem to jive with washushe. (We discussed these experiencer verbs extensive about a year ago, and the discussion can be retrieved from the archives.) JEK From voorhis at westman.wave.ca Tue Jul 9 04:43:43 2002 From: voorhis at westman.wave.ca (voorhis at westman.wave.ca) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:43:43 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > In glossing transitive verbs, e.g., 'eat', I tend to write something like: > > ruu'c^ vt. 'to eat something' (Bob's 'eat SOMEthing') > > The subject argument is implicit, the 'something' indicates that this verb > has/makes/requires an object reference. > > An actual sentence like ruu'c^-s^aNnaN would be 'he ate it'. > > On the other hand, with a detransitivized verb I'd write: > > waru'c^ va. 'to eat' > > In other words, I'd use just 'eat' to suggest use without an implicit > object. > > And, an actual sentence like waru'c^-s^aNnaN would be glossed 'he ate' or > 'he ate something', with the something intended to emphasize the lack of > an explicit argument. > > The weirdness is that including 'something' in the gloss in the lexicon > emphasizes transitivity, while including 'something' in the gloss in a > text or interlinear situation emphasizes detransitivization. This bothers > me a bit, but I think we're doomed to things like this when dealing with > incommensurate systems. I think of wa- as (usually) just expressing an indefinite object/goal/patient 'something, things (object)', as several people have pointed out including John just above. But it is surely no more intransitivizing than any other object a transitive verb may take; all objects with transitive verbs yield verb phrases that take no (further) object, just like an intransitive verb. When a Siouan transitive verb (at least in those languages I'm familiar with) has no explicit object, a third person singular personal-pronoun object is implicit 'him, her, it' When an Indo-European transitive verb has no explicit object, an indefinite object is typically implicit. So 'eat' in English means 'eat something', but ruuc in Winnebago means 'eat him, her, or it'. (And in fact, a subject 'he' or 'she' is also implicit unless the verb is imperative in which case subject 'you' is implicit, the latter situation like English, of course.) While glossing ruuc 'eat something' to signal transitivity will work, 'eat it' is more accurate and would not make -s^aNnaN in ruucs^aNnaN 'he ate it' look like it means 'it (past-tense object)' when it is actually indicative affirmative. (And ruuc is actually interrogative in Winnebago, still more accurately to be glossed 'ate it?'). Paul From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 05:09:04 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:09:04 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') In-Reply-To: <006801c22699$c4e3a420$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) ... One of the little appreciated aspects of Winnebago vowel length is that it is somewhat variable. My understanding is that Winnebago lengthens monosyllables, so, whatever the implicit length of ruc^, it would be ruu'c^ (or ru'uc^, as Miner would position the accent). I don't know if adding enclitics affects this, so I don't actually know if it's ru'c^-s^aNnaN or ruu'c^-s^aNnaN, for example, when you add the declarative. I do know that the declarative is s^a(N)naN after consonants, naN after vowels, which seems like a good candidate for an unusual phonological rule, if anyone is collecting them. This verb doesn't inflect regularly, so it's not possible to see if the first person, say, is *haruu'c^ or *haru'c^, revealing whether the stem is inherently long or not. In fact, the first person is haa' c^, the second person raa'c^, which will no doubt strike the Dakotanists as familiar looking. But, the inclusive is given by Miner as hiNnu'c^, and the wa-form (or activity form, perhaps) is waru'c^ in the same source, so I think we can take this as an underlying short-stem |[ru'c^]|, to the extent that it has a stem ... And, looking around, this is a common pattern: CVV'C : haCV'C. I haven't yet noticed any CVV'C : haCVV'C. Now, the next step is to look at the inflection of the wa-form, and in the first and second persons Miner gives waha'c^ and wara'c^, not, for example, *wahaa'c^ and *waraa'c^. So it seems that the length of haa'c^ and raa'c^ is also due to monosyllabicity, rather than inherent length, though these are certainly candidates for contracted forms. A further step, is to look at wa+ha+ruc^, which, as expected by analogy with Dhegiha is 'table' ('something to eat on'). This is waaru'c^, which is what you expect if you start with Pre-Winnebago (a lot like Chiwere or even Dhegiha, though the root is different there) *wa-a'-ruc^e and apply first deletion of final e after simple stops, then Dorsey's Law (no effect), and then Winnebago Accent Shift. A point to make here is that everyone who works directly with Winnebago - and Helmbrecht is no exception - takes the approach that morphemes like the locatives ha, hi, ho, or the pronominals ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12, etc., are h-initial, but lose these h's when something precedes them. So wa-ha is waa-, for example. From a comparativist point of view, however, a more likely scenario is that Winnebago just adds an epenthetic haitch to the start of words that begin underlyingly with a vowel. Notable exceptions are verbs that we think of for comparative reasons as *?-initial, like *?uN 'to do', which is uNuN in Winnebago. (First person, incidentally, is ha?uN' - glottal stop, short stem vowel.) Another kind of exception seems to be initial long vowels, like aagi' 'be ready', or at least monosyllables like aa' 'arm'. I suppose working with Winnebago speakers it must be clear that their perception is that the h is organic. There are some interesting wrinkles to that situation, however. First, the first person does lose its h in contractions usually, e.g., per Lipkind ha < ha + ha. But notice that now we would expect to have haa with an epenthetic h before long a. In fact, checking the inflection of ha-verbs in Miner, I do find mostly haaCV'... first persons, e.g., hac^i' 'to live on' vs. haac^i' 'I live on', but you have to be careful, because an underlying n-stem, for example, will behave differently, e.g., hanaNxguN' 'to listen' vs. hanaNaN'xguN 'I listen'. There is normally a shift of accent in an n-stem first person, e.g., naNaNs^e' 'to take away from' vs. naNaN's^e 'I take away form'. There is also haniN' 'to live' and 'I live', but Miner gives 'I live' as haaniN' in his first IJAL article on Winnebago accent, so the dictionary entry is probably a typo. Then consider the verb 'to eat' mentioned above. The wa-form had the first person waha'c^, not waa'c^. No loss of h here. Perhaps of interest here is that though Dhegiha simply lacks any initial in all the first person pronouns, e.g., OP a A1, aN P1, aN A12, Ioway-Otoe, a close relation of Winnebago, has ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12. Neither the Dhegiha languages nor Ioway-Otoe have epenthetic haitch. (In fact, the closest case I can think of is in Shawnee.) So perhaps h-initials in first person pronominals have a sort of half-way status between organic and epenthetic. Another interesting h-context is the causative, which is a suffixed ha A1, ra A2, hi A3. The inflection of 'to kill', for example, is t?ee'hi 'to kill' vs. t?ee'ha 'I killed'. Note also t?ee'wahi < t?ee'-wa-ha-hi 'I killed them'. But both h's are lost after a consonant, e.g., ceebi' 'to consume' vs. ceeba' 'I consume', but ceebwa'hi 'to consume something'. I'm not sure why the two different accentual patterns for monosyllabic root causatives. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 06:01:30 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 00:01:30 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: wii- as an indicator of nounhood Message-ID: Naturally Johannes is very interested in finding ways to diagnose nouns vs. verbs in Winnebago. One of his candidates is wii- < wa-(h)i- 'something with which to', of which he suggests (2002:18) that 'nearly all derivations with wii- are nominal in the sense that they are not personally inflected'. This puzzled me, since I interpret it as meaning that he doesn't think wii-forms are ever inflected, and I wouldn't expect the corresponding w(e)e'-forms to be uninflectable in Omaha-Ponca,and I don't think the analogous forms are uninflectable anywhere else in Siouan. In Miner's glossary I find, for example, wiigi'kara'p 'add up, v. tr.', wigi's^aNnaN' 'to do wrong to s.o.; damage or destroy property', wiigi'ze 'lade, n.; dish out, v.tr.', wiike'rak 'be still', wiira'k?o 'eat everything up'wiiru'wiN 'sell, v. tr.', wiiwa'gax 'pencil, n.; pawn, v. tr.'. Also wikigu'c^ 'be (with more than one person)'. Miner does more than assert that these are verbs - he provides first persons, and the patterns are: Stem Class Stem Form First Person < Historically Underlying Form *ka-instr: wiigi'... wa'i... < *wa-a-i-ki (OP we'agi... with wegi... dative) ??? wiigi'... wawia'i... < *wa-wa-i-a-ki- wiki... wawia'ki... < *wa-wa-i-a-hki- (These examples seem to be dative and reflexive. The pattern of wawi- resembles what happens when you add wa- to itha in OP. Itha is like Dakota iya or Winnebago hira, a compound of the i and a locatives. Wa + itha in OP becomes wawe or wa+a+wa+i, with the locatives apparently reversed. Where the second wa comes from in the Winnebago context I can't say. I'm not even sure where it comes from in the Omaha-Ponca context! At least OP starts with two locatives. Perhaps the Winnebago forms are actually or historically mixed paradigms?) regular: wiikere... wiakere... < *wa-i-a-kr *r-stem: wiir... wiit... < *wa-i-p-r- *p-stem: wiiw... wiip... < *wa-i-h-p- The patterns of inflection of wii-forms are somewhat irregular and perhaps unexpected, but it does seem to be possible to inflect wii-forms. As Johannes observes in his paper, the forms in question are often ambivalent, serving both as nouns and as verbs as far as English-based interpretations go. Most wii-forms in Miner don't have verbal glosses or inflected forms listed. It seems to me rather likely, though, that this is partly the luck of the draw. I'd bet, for example, that wiiwa'c^gis 'saw, n.' can be inflected as 'I sawed something, you sawed something, etc.' The questions are, can we distinguish which they are generally or in a given context, and how? I think the inflectability of wii-forms makes this a bit more difficult. JEK From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Jul 9 15:12:45 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:12:45 EDT Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: I heartily agree with Catherine's translation of wa- as "stuff." That generally works well for Crow, too. Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 15:29:31 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:29:31 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles In-Reply-To: <182.acc3c87.2a5c576d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > I heartily agree with Catherine's translation of wa- as "stuff." That > generally works well for Crow, too. I think stuff works, but maybe better for mass-noun objects? I'm kicking myself for eliciting words like 'saw' (Omaha we'basaN) and not going on to ask how to say 'I sawed the wood?', 'Did you saw the wood?', 'I wonder if they will saw the wood for us?' and so on. At one time Bob Rankin proposed we should assemble a set of suggestions for Siouan fieldworkers - verbs likely to be irregular, elicit all persons of verbs or at least 1st, 2nd, inclusive, etc. Maybe we should add to that, elicit all persons of any nouns that seem to be of verbal origin? Find out how to say 'it is a whatever', too? Not to mention how to say 'there is a whatever'. JEK From cqcqcq at pgtv.net Tue Jul 9 16:04:04 2002 From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:04:04 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: My translation for wa- in Osage is "stuff" or "folks". And yes to JEK's idea that I have many examples with subjects, such as wabra'htaN 'I drink stuff' (usually understood as alcoholic drinks) where -b- is the subject and the verb is dha'htaN 'drink'. Carolyn Q. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles > I heartily agree with Catherine's translation of wa- as "stuff." That > generally works well for Crow, too. > > Randy From BARudes at aol.com Tue Jul 9 16:58:57 2002 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:58:57 EDT Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: For what it is worth, Catawba has a particle wi which is usually used as a third person plural definite object proclitic. (The third person singular/plural indefinite object proclitic is pa.) However, there are constructions where it occurs but a reading with a third person plural object is not logical. Siebert referred to wi in those cases as a detransitiving particle. The particle w(i) may also have at one time served as a nominalizer in Catawba (Bob has some good examples in his paper on Siouan, Catawba and Yuchi), but it was replaced in this usage in Catawba by the particle d'apa 'something' (as in dapac'ikpu:? 'toad' [lit. "something-forward-stumble"], compare: cikhip'u:re: 'one stumbles forward'). In Woccon, it was replaced by ru-, which may be cognate with the Catawba relative pronominal stem du- as in du'we 'who', du'weye 'nothing'. The particle is also probably related to the Catwaba alienable possessive suffix -wa? 'one's, his, her; your (plural); their', where the final -a? is common to all of the alienable possessive suffixes (-na? 'my', -ya? 'your (singular), -?a:? 'our'). The replacement of w(i) as a nominalizer in Catawba and Woccon by indefinite pronominal forms may an old pattern in Siouan-Catawban. Certainly, the meaning of Catawba d'apa 'something' is not too far off from 'stuff'. From Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Tue Jul 9 17:01:08 2002 From: Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:01:08 +0200 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, of course I followed the discussion John started on occasion of the appearance of my paper on nouns and verbs in Hocank (Winnebago). I cannot reply to all aspects John and the others dealt with in their contributions and I have to admit that I cannot say anything about the historical-comparative background of the various forms in Hocank, although I dared to produce and to repeat (Lipkind) some speculations on the origin of wa- in may paper. I am grateful to John having indicated the weaknesses of such speculations on the basis of the present knowledge of comparative Siouan. What I know from research within the field of grammaticalization is that third person pronouns mostly derive etymologically form demonstrative pronouns, but may also occasionally go back to nominal sources designating general concepts such as THING, PERSON etc. These may be also the source for indefinite pronouns such as something, somebody etc. This was the background for thinking of the possibility of waz^aN as a source for wa- in Hocank, but alas, there seems to be no comparative evidence for it. So, instead of pursuing this question further, I would rather like to present some details of the synchronic usage of wa- in Hocank, as far as I found out. This could also be of interest for comparative purposes, since the exact functional/ distributional behavior of this form may be different with the respective cognates in other Siouan languages. First of all, I think the characterization of wa- as an P argument filling 3rd person pl pronoun is correct. Each transitive verb in Hocank may take wa- indicating a third person plural, no matter whether the P participant is human, animate or inanimate. In this case, the P NP is optional (cf. 1a-b). If the P NP is there, wa- pluralizes the referent of this NP (cf. 1c). Example (1d) shows that wa- can be used only in case that the P NP is definite (def. article), and (1e) shows that wa- is not obligatory, in cases where the referent of the P NP is pluralized by means of a numeral. (1) guúc^ 'to shoot so/sth' (Vtr) a) caa-rá ha-gúc^ 'I shoot the deer' deer-the I-shoot b) waa-gúc^ 'I shoot them' /wa-ha-/ them-I-shoot c) caa-rá waa-gúc^ 'I shoot the many deer' (lit. I shoot them, the deer) deer-the I->them-shoot d) *caa waa-gúc^ e) caa-rá joóp ha-gúc^ 'I shoot four deer' deer-the four I-shoot There are only a few cases - as far as I found out - where wa- is indeed used with transitive verbs as a true intransitivizer. Such an example is the case ruúc 'to eat sth' which happened to be discussed in some of the list contributions. Here, the wa- prefix seems to fill the P slot of the verb without allowing a free P NP, i.e. there is no anaphoric agreement with the NP referring to the food to be eaten. I give the relevant examples in (2a-b). (2) ruúc^ 'to eat sth' a) ks^é ruúc^ 'he eats an apple' apple he.eats b) wa-ruc^-náNk-s^aNaN ?-eat-prog(sitting)-DECL He is eating (sitting). c) *ks^é-ra wa-ruc^-náNk-s^aNaN apple-the ?- eat-prog(sitting)-DECL 'he is eating(sitting) the apples' Example (2c) shows that the verb warúc^ is rather an intransitive verb than a transitive one with a specific P argument. In this case, wa- cannot refer to the P NP, no matter whether it is a count noun such as apples or rather a mass noun such as waníN 'meat'. It is this type of examples where wa- is usually translated with 'something'. This warúc^ case (standing for some others too) requires some explanation. Is it the same form as the wa- in the examples in (1) ?. Wa- in (2) rather resembles an indefinite pronoun here reducing the valence of ruúc^ by demoting the P argument. One might also argue that there is a semantic connection, a continuum between the two usages of wa- in (1) and (2) in terms of specifity. A plural participant is more specific than an indefinite (not known and not specific) participant, but less specific than a 3sg participant. You all know that 3sg is not marked at all in Hocank verbs. The warúc^case suggests that the P participant is put back from syntax (case frame) to the lexical meaning of the word. Other verbs such as woorák (< wa+horák) 'to tell stories (etym. 'to tell them' ?)' and woohí (< wa+hohí) 'to win (etym. 'to defeat them' ?)' work very similar. The next piece in the mosaic of wa- is the fact that wa- productively derives nouns (or other verbs) from intransitive verbs only to a very limited degree. E.g. the verb s^is^re 'to be broken, to break (intr)' is not possible with wa-. There are not so many cases in the Hocank lexicon (cf. Zep's lexicon) where an stativ intransitive verb takes wa- to recieve a nominal meaning. An example in this direction is wa-c^ék 'young person, virgin' (< wa- + ceék 'new'). Lipkind gives other examples, but they are not contained in the lexical sources available for Hocank (which I consider a bad sign for the correctness of his examples). In the vast majority of cases, wa- is restricted to the P slot in the case frame of a tr. verb. This result is significant because it clarifies to some extent the quite general assumption that wa- is simply a valence reducing affix or something of that sort. Generally, it does not reduce the valence of an intransitive verb and it is certainly not the case that wa- is a productive means to derive nouns from intransitive verbs. Now, the reason why I had to discuss the wa- forms in my paper was the claim by Lipkind that wa- is a nominalizing affix. The problem with this claim is that many of the proposed nominalization in the lexicon can be used also as verbs, some are, however, lexicalized in a nominal meaning, ie. the original verb which is the basis of the derivation is no longer be used as verb. I shall illustrate this. (3) a) woonáNz^iN 'shirt' (< wa-honaz^i) b) honaNz^íN 'to stand in it' (4) a) wookáNnaNk 'cap, hat' (< wa-hokáNnaNk) b) hokáNnaNk 'to wear sth. on the head' c) woorákaNaNk /wa-ho-ra-kaNaNk/ ?- stem-2sgSubj-wear 'You wear several hats' (5) a) wooxé 'grave' (etym. probably from /wa-ho-xe/) b) *hoxé 'to bury in it' The proposed noun woonáNz^iN 'shirt' (< wa-honaNz^iN) can be used with an article (or without) as a referential expression in a clause referreing to a shirt, it can also be used as predicate in the sense somone is standing in them. The verbal basis is the verb honaNz^íN 'to stand in it' with the locative prefix ho- introducing a direct object slot into the case frame of the verb naNz^íN 'to stand'. The same holds for the "noun" wookáNnaNk 'cap, hat' which is based on a regular verb hokáNnaNk 'to wear sth. on the head'. Example 4c demonstrates that the proposed noun can be used as a kind of intransitve active verb which has incorporated the object of the wearing into the the lexical meaning by incorporating the wa- prefix. That wa- occurs also in fossilized? nominal derivations can be illustrated with example (5). The noun wooxé 'grave' is morphologicaly transparaent with regard to the potential derivation, but there is no independent verb *hoxé 'to bury in it' which could be the basis for the derivation, and in addition, the noun wooxé cannot be used as verbal predicate. There are also many verbs in the Hocank lexicon which begin with wa- where the wa- belongs to the stem and is not a derivational prefix, this is e.g. the case with wagé 'to mean to designate' which is conjugated by an infix between wa- and -ge, like in derivations, but both components are part of the stem. This are some of the facts about wa- in Hocank. I do not really know what to do with it. One might doubt that wa- is a single morpheme as Bob indicated in his contribution and I really would like to see that there are two forms for the functions of wa- in other Siouan languages. If this is not the case, one has to stick with the multifunctionality of wa-. I think I have shown to some extent that the functions/ meanings of wa- are not completely disparate, they are therefore better described in terms of polysemy than arbitrary homonymy. Johannes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Johannes.Helmbrecht.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Johannes Helmbrecht URL: From KATHLEEN_DANKER at sdstate.edu Tue Jul 9 17:42:59 2002 From: KATHLEEN_DANKER at sdstate.edu (DANKER, KATHLEEN) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:42:59 -0500 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8, Jul 2002, John Kuntz wrote: "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that their perception is that the h is organic." This was certainly true of the late Felix White, Sr., with whom I worked for several years. When I would ask him to spell out taped Ho Chunk phrases, he would regularly reinsert h sounds that had not been pronounced. He wrote the h sound in the syllabary with a star symbol which he said stood for "the breath." This had religious significance for him because it was connected with the breath of the creator and the sacredness of the Ho Chunk language. K.D. Danker >On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect > > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) ... > >One of the little appreciated aspects of Winnebago vowel length is that it >is somewhat variable. > >My understanding is that Winnebago lengthens monosyllables, so, whatever >the implicit length of ruc^, it would be ruu'c^ (or ru'uc^, as Miner would >position the accent). I don't know if adding enclitics affects this, so I >don't actually know if it's ru'c^-s^aNnaN or ruu'c^-s^aNnaN, for example, >when you add the declarative. I do know that the declarative is s^a(N)naN >after consonants, naN after vowels, which seems like a good candidate for >an unusual phonological rule, if anyone is collecting them. > >This verb doesn't inflect regularly, so it's not possible to see if the >first person, say, is *haruu'c^ or *haru'c^, revealing whether the stem is >inherently long or not. In fact, the first person is haa' c^, the second >person raa'c^, which will no doubt strike the Dakotanists as familiar >looking. But, the inclusive is given by Miner as hiNnu'c^, and the >wa-form (or activity form, perhaps) is waru'c^ in the same source, so I >think we can take this as an underlying short-stem |[ru'c^]|, to the >extent that it has a stem ... And, looking around, this is a common >pattern: CVV'C : haCV'C. I haven't yet noticed any CVV'C : haCVV'C. > >Now, the next step is to look at the inflection of the wa-form, and in the >first and second persons Miner gives waha'c^ and wara'c^, not, for >example, *wahaa'c^ and *waraa'c^. So it seems that the length of haa'c^ >and raa'c^ is also due to monosyllabicity, rather than inherent length, >though these are certainly candidates for contracted forms. > >A further step, is to look at wa+ha+ruc^, which, as expected by analogy >with Dhegiha is 'table' ('something to eat on'). This is waaru'c^, which >is what you expect if you start with Pre-Winnebago (a lot like Chiwere or >even Dhegiha, though the root is different there) *wa-a'-ruc^e and apply >first deletion of final e after simple stops, then Dorsey's Law (no >effect), and then Winnebago Accent Shift. > >A point to make here is that everyone who works directly with Winnebago - >and Helmbrecht is no exception - takes the approach that morphemes like >the locatives ha, hi, ho, or the pronominals ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12, etc., >are h-initial, but lose these h's when something precedes them. So wa-ha >is waa-, for example. From a comparativist point of view, however, a more >likely scenario is that Winnebago just adds an epenthetic haitch to the >start of words that begin underlyingly with a vowel. Notable exceptions >are verbs that we think of for comparative reasons as *?-initial, like >*?uN 'to do', which is uNuN in Winnebago. (First person, incidentally, is >ha?uN' - glottal stop, short stem vowel.) Another kind of exception seems >to be initial long vowels, like aagi' 'be ready', or at least >monosyllables like aa' 'arm'. > >I suppose working with Winnebago speakers it must be clear that their >perception is that the h is organic. > >There are some interesting wrinkles to that situation, however. First, >the first person does lose its h in contractions usually, e.g., per >Lipkind ha < ha + ha. But notice that now we would expect to have haa >with an epenthetic h before long a. In fact, checking the inflection of >ha-verbs in Miner, I do find mostly haaCV'... first persons, e.g., hac^i' >'to live on' vs. haac^i' 'I live on', but you have to be careful, because >an underlying n-stem, for example, will behave differently, e.g., >hanaNxguN' 'to listen' vs. hanaNaN'xguN 'I listen'. There is normally a >shift of accent in an n-stem first person, e.g., naNaNs^e' 'to take away >from' vs. naNaN's^e 'I take away form'. There is also haniN' 'to live' >and 'I live', but Miner gives 'I live' as haaniN' in his first IJAL >article on Winnebago accent, so the dictionary entry is probably a typo. > >Then consider the verb 'to eat' mentioned above. The wa-form had the >first person waha'c^, not waa'c^. No loss of h here. Perhaps of interest >here is that though Dhegiha simply lacks any initial in all the first >person pronouns, e.g., OP a A1, aN P1, aN A12, Ioway-Otoe, a close >relation of Winnebago, has ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12. Neither the Dhegiha >languages nor Ioway-Otoe have epenthetic haitch. (In fact, the closest >case I can think of is in Shawnee.) So perhaps h-initials in first person >pronominals have a sort of half-way status between organic and epenthetic. > >Another interesting h-context is the causative, which is a suffixed ha >A1, ra A2, hi A3. The inflection of 'to kill', for example, is t?ee'hi >'to kill' vs. t?ee'ha 'I killed'. Note also t?ee'wahi < t?ee'-wa-ha-hi 'I >killed them'. But both h's are lost after a consonant, e.g., ceebi' 'to >consume' vs. ceeba' 'I consume', but ceebwa'hi 'to consume something'. >I'm not sure why the two different accentual patterns for monosyllabic >root causatives. > >JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 18:05:55 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:05:55 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles In-Reply-To: <003b01c22762$47d95960$0e15460a@direcpc.com> Message-ID: > My translation for wa- in Osage is "stuff" or "folks". > And yes to JEK's idea that I have many examples with subjects, such as > wabra'htaN 'I drink stuff' (usually understood as alcoholic drinks) > where -b- is the subject and the verb is dha'htaN 'drink'. I meant I thought you had cases where there was a nominal object with a wa-form of a verb. I probably said this wrong the first time. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 18:14:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:14:27 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles In-Reply-To: <19c.4f06137.2a5c7051@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > For what it is worth, Catawba has a particle wi which is usually used as a > third person plural definite object proclitic. (The third person > singular/plural indefinite object proclitic is pa.) For what it's worth, pa > wa might be a source of *wa- as a third person plural (definite) marker in Siouan, though (a) the third person plural definite *wa- in Siouan is only attested in Mississippi Valley and (b) I don't know if there is any other basis for presuming PSC *pa > PMVS *wa. The sound change *p > w occurs in the development of Winnebago-Chiwere, and explains the alternation stem initial w : fist person p in Winnebago. > However, there are constructions where it occurs but a reading with a > third person plural object is not logical. Siebert referred to wi in > those cases as a detransitiving particle. The particle w(i) may also > have at one time served as a nominalizer in Catawba (Bob has some good > examples in his paper on Siouan, Catawba and Yuchi), ... I'm not sure if I see wa- as a nominalizer in Siouan or as verbal prefix that occurs for other reasons in certain kinds of verbs that are frequently nominalized. I think the consensus, though, is that wa- itself acts rather like an incorporated nominal. JEK From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 9 23:30:53 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:30:53 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') Message-ID: > "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that > their perception is that the h is organic." What exactly do you mean by 'organic' here, John? Dave Costa ---------- >From: "DANKER, KATHLEEN" >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') >Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2002, 10:42 am > > On Mon, 8, Jul 2002, John Kuntz wrote: > "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that > their perception is that the h is organic." > > This was certainly true of the late Felix White, Sr., with whom I > worked for several years. When I would ask him to spell out taped Ho > Chunk phrases, he would regularly reinsert h sounds that had not been > pronounced. He wrote the h sound in the syllabary with a star symbol > which he said stood for "the breath." This had religious > significance for him because it was connected with the breath of the > creator and the sacredness of the Ho Chunk language. > > K.D. Danker > > >>On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: >> > The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect >> > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) ... >> >>One of the little appreciated aspects of Winnebago vowel length is that it >>is somewhat variable. >> >>My understanding is that Winnebago lengthens monosyllables, so, whatever >>the implicit length of ruc^, it would be ruu'c^ (or ru'uc^, as Miner would >>position the accent). I don't know if adding enclitics affects this, so I >>don't actually know if it's ru'c^-s^aNnaN or ruu'c^-s^aNnaN, for example, >>when you add the declarative. I do know that the declarative is s^a(N)naN >>after consonants, naN after vowels, which seems like a good candidate for >>an unusual phonological rule, if anyone is collecting them. >> >>This verb doesn't inflect regularly, so it's not possible to see if the >>first person, say, is *haruu'c^ or *haru'c^, revealing whether the stem is >>inherently long or not. In fact, the first person is haa' c^, the second >>person raa'c^, which will no doubt strike the Dakotanists as familiar >>looking. But, the inclusive is given by Miner as hiNnu'c^, and the >>wa-form (or activity form, perhaps) is waru'c^ in the same source, so I >>think we can take this as an underlying short-stem |[ru'c^]|, to the >>extent that it has a stem ... And, looking around, this is a common >>pattern: CVV'C : haCV'C. I haven't yet noticed any CVV'C : haCVV'C. >> >>Now, the next step is to look at the inflection of the wa-form, and in the >>first and second persons Miner gives waha'c^ and wara'c^, not, for >>example, *wahaa'c^ and *waraa'c^. So it seems that the length of haa'c^ >>and raa'c^ is also due to monosyllabicity, rather than inherent length, >>though these are certainly candidates for contracted forms. >> >>A further step, is to look at wa+ha+ruc^, which, as expected by analogy >>with Dhegiha is 'table' ('something to eat on'). This is waaru'c^, which >>is what you expect if you start with Pre-Winnebago (a lot like Chiwere or >>even Dhegiha, though the root is different there) *wa-a'-ruc^e and apply >>first deletion of final e after simple stops, then Dorsey's Law (no >>effect), and then Winnebago Accent Shift. >> >>A point to make here is that everyone who works directly with Winnebago - >>and Helmbrecht is no exception - takes the approach that morphemes like >>the locatives ha, hi, ho, or the pronominals ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12, etc., >>are h-initial, but lose these h's when something precedes them. So wa-ha >>is waa-, for example. From a comparativist point of view, however, a more >>likely scenario is that Winnebago just adds an epenthetic haitch to the >>start of words that begin underlyingly with a vowel. Notable exceptions >>are verbs that we think of for comparative reasons as *?-initial, like >>*?uN 'to do', which is uNuN in Winnebago. (First person, incidentally, is >>ha?uN' - glottal stop, short stem vowel.) Another kind of exception seems >>to be initial long vowels, like aagi' 'be ready', or at least monosyllables >>like aa' 'arm'. >> >>I suppose working with Winnebago speakers it must be clear that their >>perception is that the h is organic. >> >>There are some interesting wrinkles to that situation, however. First, >>the first person does lose its h in contractions usually, e.g., per >>Lipkind ha < ha + ha. But notice that now we would expect to have haa >>with an epenthetic h before long a. In fact, checking the inflection of >>ha-verbs in Miner, I do find mostly haaCV'... first persons, e.g., hac^i' >>'to live on' vs. haac^i' 'I live on', but you have to be careful, because >>an underlying n-stem, for example, will behave differently, e.g., >>hanaNxguN' 'to listen' vs. hanaNaN'xguN 'I listen'. There is normally a >>shift of accent in an n-stem first person, e.g., naNaNs^e' 'to take away >>from' vs. naNaN's^e 'I take away form'. There is also haniN' 'to live' >>and 'I live', but Miner gives 'I live' as haaniN' in his first IJAL >>article on Winnebago accent, so the dictionary entry is probably a typo. >> >>Then consider the verb 'to eat' mentioned above. The wa-form had the >>first person waha'c^, not waa'c^. No loss of h here. Perhaps of interest >>here is that though Dhegiha simply lacks any initial in all the first >>person pronouns, e.g., OP a A1, aN P1, aN A12, Ioway-Otoe, a close >>relation of Winnebago, has ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12. Neither the Dhegiha >>languages nor Ioway-Otoe have epenthetic haitch. (In fact, the closest >>case I can think of is in Shawnee.) So perhaps h-initials in first person >>pronominals have a sort of half-way status between organic and epenthetic. >> >>Another interesting h-context is the causative, which is a suffixed ha >>A1, ra A2, hi A3. The inflection of 'to kill', for example, is t?ee'hi >>'to kill' vs. t?ee'ha 'I killed'. Note also t?ee'wahi < t?ee'-wa-ha-hi 'I >>killed them'. But both h's are lost after a consonant, e.g., ceebi' 'to >>consume' vs. ceeba' 'I consume', but ceebwa'hi 'to consume something'. >>I'm not sure why the two different accentual patterns for monosyllabic >>root causatives. >> >>JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 10 01:52:36 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:52:36 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that > > their perception is that the h is organic." > > What exactly do you mean by 'organic' here, John? An underlying part of the stem, that has to be deleted in contexts where it doesn't appear, e.g., in waa- < wa-ha-, as opposed to an epenthetic consonant, added in some relatively superficial way. A lot of Siouan languages add an automatic ? before initial vowels, for example, while Winnebago seems (almost) to add an automatic h. (Except for the various exceptions mentioned, and perhas others I haven't noticed.) JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 10 04:10:28 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:10:28 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- In-Reply-To: <3D2B16D4.FB645EEF@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > ... What I know from research within the field of grammaticalization > is that third person pronouns mostly derive etymologically form > demonstrative pronouns, but may also occasionally go back to nominal > sources designating general concepts such as THING, PERSON etc. These > may be also the source for indefinite pronouns such as something, > somebody etc. ... This is very reasonable and likely, of course, and something of this sort may well provide the ultimate explanation for wa- 'something' and for wa- 'third person plural'. It's just that the particular Winnebago form in question (waz^aN') doesn't work out as an explanation. > There are only a few cases - as far as I found out - where wa- is indeed > used with transitive verbs as a true intransitivizer. Such an example is > the case ru�c 'to eat sth' which happened to be discussed in some of the > list contributions. Here, the wa- prefix seems to fill the P slot of the > verb without allowing a free P NP, i.e. there is no anaphoric agreement > with the NP referring to the food to be eaten. I give the relevant > examples in (2a-b). I haven't really looked at the issue of the productivity of wa- in various capacities, though I have the impression that wa- as a detransitivizer, as it were, of transitives is absolutely productive in, say, Omaha-Ponca. Wa-forms are rather rare in dicitonaries, however, since they tend to occur only in cases where the wa-form has something special about its meaning or where the verb is salient (like 'eat') but the difference between the unmarked and derived forms is obscure in the English gloss (both waru'c^ and ru'c being essentially 'eat', for example). Wa-forms are also found in dictionaries in the case Johannes mentions later, where the wa- is a fixed part of the stem. > b) wa-ruc^-n�Nk-s^aNaN > ?-eat-prog(sitting)-DECL > He is eating (sitting). This example supports the contention that the stem is short, since accent is found on the enclitic positional. > ... The war�c^case suggests that the P participant is put back > from syntax (case frame) to the lexical meaning of the word. Other verbs > such as woor�k (< wa+hor�k) 'to tell stories (etym. 'to tell them' ?)' > and wooh� (< wa+hoh�) 'to win (etym. 'to defeat them' ?)' work very > similar. Although glosses like 'to tell things' or 'to defeat someone' also work. Of course the ease with which such translations grade into each other is part of the hypothesis that wa- 'third person plural object' derives from wa- 'indefinite object'. On the other hand, Blair's mention of pa- vs. wi- in Catawba left me with a sudden started realization that the two senses might just as easily be equally old and of independent origin. > The next piece in the mosaic of wa- is the fact that wa- productively > derives nouns (or other verbs) from intransitive verbs only to a very > limited degree. E.g. the verb s^is^re 'to be broken, to break (intr)' is > not possible with wa-. This is the sort of priceless observation that comes out of fieldwork as opposed to pondering hapax legomena in sparse records. I do have the impression that wa- plus intransitive forms are scarecer in Omaha-Ponca than wa- + transitive forms, and more generally lexicalized. > There are not so many cases in the Hocank lexicon (cf. Zep's lexicon) > where an stativ intransitive verb takes wa- to recieve a nominal > meaning. An example in this direction is wa-c^�k 'young person, > virgin' (< wa- + ce�k 'new'). Lipkind gives other examples, but they > are not contained in the lexical sources available for Hocank (which I > consider a bad sign for the correctness of his examples). It would be my inclination to assume that the examples were valid, and came from his fieldwork, even if there were not attested elsewhere. If there were a pattern of rejecting his exx. by speakers working with later workers one might wonder. > In the vast majority of cases, wa- is restricted to the P slot in the > case frame of a tr. verb. This result is significant because it > clarifies to some extent the quite general assumption that wa- is > simply a valence reducing affix or something of that sort. Generally, > it does not reduce the valence of an intransitive verb and it is > certainly not the case that wa- is a productive means to derive nouns > from intransitive verbs. I do wonder about the wa-intransitives in Dhegiha. For example, OP wa...khega 'be sick'. We could argue that the wa is just an arbitrary formant on the verb, but this seems to me to beg the question, especially when comparison with Osage hu...hega 'be sick' suggests that wa in the OP form is analogous to the incorporated hu (probably 'limb') in the Osage form. It's possible the roots khega and hega are unconnected, but I suspect khega s some sort of dative of hega, historically speaking. > Now, the reason why I had to discuss the wa- forms in my paper was the > claim by Lipkind that wa- is a nominalizing affix. The problem with this > claim is that many of the proposed nominalization in the lexicon can be > used also as verbs, some are, however, lexicalized in a nominal meaning, > ... I agree that the evidence that wa-forms can be used as verbs dismisses the notion that wa- is essentially nominalizing. In fact, I doubt it is even really nominalizing in those wa-stative forms like wac^e'k 'ypoung person, virgin', though I haven't a ready analysis of what it actually is, other than a sort of pseudo-nominal 'something' incorporated into the stem. Wa- is present with various apparently nominal forms, but I think it is something of an associative relationship, rather than a causal ones. In the same way doctors are often around just before people die, for example. Again it's very useful to find that some locatives underlying wa-locative-root formations are considered non-forms by Winnebago speakers. It is sort of an open question to what extent things like wa- or locatives, or datives, etc., are productive in particular Siouan languages (or generally). JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jul 12 15:50:59 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:50:59 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. Bruce > > 'To be merciful; to pity' is dha?e=...dhe (a causative). > > I looked for a cognate in Dakotan, and found only yak?e 'wolf', which > matches dha?e in form, but not very well in meaning. I believe that > cognates of *rak?e=...re are widespread in Dhegiha. I supposed it might > be *rax?e=...re - I'd have to check the Quapaw form. The rest merge *x? > and *k? as k?, which becomes ? in OP. . > > JEK > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 14 04:30:57 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:30:57 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D2F08F3.4976.13BB9E8@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a. I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the flesh'. This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a). The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or one of those ablauting nouns. This is actually saying the same thing, with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon. Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a. Miner gives for Winnebago gis^ere'k 'have hurt feelings' (gi- cf. Dakotan ka-, not ki-), hu'us^erek ~ huus^e'rek 'bone' (huu 'limb', maybe originally 'severed limb'?). He gives se'rek 'be long and thin', as in maNaNse'reserek 'cut long, but thinner than maNaNse'reserec^', or c^aas^'e huNse'rek 'collar bone' (c^aas^e' 'neck', huNs'erek sic for huus[^]e'rek?). I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth; a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago forms, or OP ma[a]=). I guess that's not very likely, since there's already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental. (Is the instrumental maya-?) The mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan, though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally). If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to resolve obscurities. True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse! JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 14 04:38:17 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:38:17 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. Correction: > Buechel also gives mas^le [correct this to ma'yas^le, my error] and > ma'yac^a [added accent]. From rwd0002 at unt.edu Sun Jul 14 14:33:17 2002 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:33:17 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. > Greetings to all Siouanists from Madras, India: Here are my two rupees on the Athabaskan connection: There is in Navajo, Western Apache, Chiricahua, and Mescalero, at least, a stem ma', mba' or ba' referring to foxes and coyotes. This is similar to the ma- of mayasleca; but I think it is coincidence. Why would the Lakhota word borrow an Athabaskan term and compound that with something that, as JEK pointed out, looks very Dakotan? Not likely. Note also that the ma', mba', ba' thing occurs in other languages of the Southwest and is probably onomatopoeic, imitating the sound a coyote makes. Willem de Reuse From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Jul 14 18:36:00 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:36:00 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > Koontz John E > Sent: July 13, 2002 9:31 PM > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. > > Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a. > > I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the > flesh'. This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from > ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a). The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or > one of those ablauting nouns. This is actually saying the same thing, > with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon. > > Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a. I checked Riggs for Dakota too. sde'-c^a sends you to kasdec^a, which means "to split, as wood with an ax". I also happened to look up kas^dec^a which he lists as a variant of kasdec^a. Ya-sde-c^a is listed as "to split with the teeth", ya- being the instrumental 'with the teeth'. There is no entry for mayas^dec^a or mayasdec^a. ---> > I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth; > a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is > a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago > forms, or OP ma[a]=). I guess that's not very likely, since there's > already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental. (Is the instrumental maya-?) The > mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan, > though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka > suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally). > > If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of > looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to > resolve obscurities. True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by > looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse! Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or, as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark, but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. Next time I talk to any Nakota speakers, I'll ask about this term. I don't seem to have it in my notes. Shannon From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jul 14 21:52:02 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:52:02 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: I've been reading with interest the postings on WI wa- since my earlier note, but I was in Oklahoma and didn't have time to reply. Probably most of what can be said has been said, so I only have a few points. I don't see a difference between treating wa- in terms of voice (transitivity) or aktionsart, which is simply a name for semantic aspect, unless one or the other clarifies 100% of the cases. And I don't see ANY single category doing that successfully. > I dared to produce and to repeat (Lipkind) some speculations on the origin of wa- .... Wherever wa- comes from, it has been there for several millennia. It is found with a similar, if not identical, function (more likely, functionS) in every Siouan language. That, plus the fact that WI 'something' seems to lack cognates elsewhere makes grammaticalization essentially unprovable at this point. Also, evidence strongly suggests that there have been several "waves" of wa-'s. The initial consonant clusters beginning with a labial that are frequent in languages like Dakota certainly appear to go back to *w-C clusters. These include bl-, mn-, pt-, ps-, ph-, p$-. The b/m/p are reflexes of wV- prefixes that have undergone syncope. The first person sg. prefix allomorphs show that these sound changes affected wa- sequences from more than one source. So, if you want to track the grammatical use(s) of *wa- over a number of centuries, all you have to do is look at nouns and verbs beginning with these sequences in the modern languages (those that haven't simplified the clusters). Expect to find instances of "layering", i.e., wa-bl- words. But of course we should also expect to find that the functions of wa- have changed in the meantime. > Each transitive verb in Hocank may take wa- indicating a third person plural, ... the P NP is optional.... I found this interesting. I don't remember any cases in my Kaw data of the wa- being used with a nominal object or patient present in the clause. If this is possible, then the analysis of wa- as an intransitivizer is simply wrong, wouldn't you say? But if there are "other wa-s" that clearly do reduce valence, then I think we have more than one wa- prefix. Homophony (or long/short V near-homophony) could easily lead to "contamination" of one from the other and we might expect to find some overlap. I have a bit of a problem with discussion so far. We have sort of been treating "indefinite object" and "valence reducer" as alternative terms for the same sets of examples. These are really different concepts, and it would be nice to find syntactic evidence for one or the other. (Then there are the WI definite object wa-s also!) I think that even if wa- (or one of the wa-s) reduces valence, creating intransitive verbs, that we would translate the resultant expressions into English with a transitive but indefinite "something". We have to avoid translating Siouan into English and then analyzing the English! Mary Haas used to warn about this. My earlier attempt to make that point failed, I think. So to me, the fact that many of us find that a translation of wa- as 'something' or 'stuff' generally works, is irrelevant or even misleading. 'I ate something' and 'I ate stuff' are still transitive sentences. To speakers, they may be totally intransitive. How do we know which? >There are only a few cases - as far as I found out - where wa- is indeed used with transitive verbs as a true intransitivizer. This confirms my suspicion that wa- (if there is only one wa-) is derivational, not inflectional. > The next piece in the mosaic of wa- is the fact that wa- productively derives nouns (or other verbs) from intransitive verbs only to a very limited degree. More evidence for its derivational status. >These are some of the facts about wa- in Hocank. I do not really know what to do with them. Johannes has gone a lot farther toward explaining the facts than most of us! This has been a really interesting discussion and the problems have analogs in virtually every Siouan language. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jul 14 22:31:41 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:31:41 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't it? I guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan languages use a derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sun Jul 14 23:36:12 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:36:12 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: > Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't it? I > guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan languages use a > derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. I find it interesting that most Siouan languages don't have a totally separate word for 'coyote' as opposed to 'dog'. Does this mean that there isn't a clearly reconstructible Proto-Siouan word for 'coyote'? I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), they've have had to acquire words for the animal. As it turns out, most of the 'Central' languages use derivations of the Algonquian 'wolf' word, never the Algonquian 'dog' word. So Miami and Potawatomi use a formation that transparently means 'common wolf', and Shawnee uses the diminutive of the 'wolf' word to mean 'coyote'. Arapaho and Cheyenne, on the other hand, share a word which one of the two languages seems to have borrowed from the other. Ives Goddard, who spotted this, has pointed out that the forms would regularly reflect Proto- Algonquian */pa:xkahamwa/, which would mean 'the one that opens it by tool', but his position is that it's an innovation, and not a Proto-Algonquian name for the animal. Don't ask me why 'coyote' should be called 'the one that opens it by tool'. Do most Siouan languages have a separate 'wolf' word independent from their 'coyote'/'dog' word? *If* no clear Proto-Siouan word that unequivocally means 'coyote' can be reconstructed, then I guess that means that the Proto-Siouans didn't have them, and that either some Siouans moved into the range of them, or that coyotes themselves expanded their range (definitely known to have happened at least over the last couple centuries). Dave Costa From ishna00 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 15 02:15:36 2002 From: ishna00 at hotmail.com (Thode Charles) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:15:36 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: The Dakota word for coyote is "Mica" pronounced /mii-cha/ which differs from /shun-ka/ meaning 'dog' /shunk-tok-cha/ from 'shunka tokeca' is the word for wolf. Charles H. Thode ishnashunktokcha (lone wolf) >From: "David Costa" >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:36:12 -0700 > > > > Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't it? I > > guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan languages use a > > derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. > >I find it interesting that most Siouan languages don't have a totally >separate word for 'coyote' as opposed to 'dog'. Does this mean that there >isn't a clearly reconstructible Proto-Siouan word for 'coyote'? > >I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- >Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, >since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho >there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of >the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually >when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), they've have >had to acquire words for the animal. As it turns out, most of the 'Central' >languages use derivations of the Algonquian 'wolf' word, never the >Algonquian 'dog' word. So Miami and Potawatomi use a formation that >transparently means 'common wolf', and Shawnee uses the diminutive of the >'wolf' word to mean 'coyote'. > >Arapaho and Cheyenne, on the other hand, share a word which one of the two >languages seems to have borrowed from the other. Ives Goddard, who spotted >this, has pointed out that the forms would regularly reflect Proto- >Algonquian */pa:xkahamwa/, which would mean 'the one that opens it by tool', >but his position is that it's an innovation, and not a Proto-Algonquian name >for the animal. Don't ask me why 'coyote' should be called 'the one that >opens it by tool'. > >Do most Siouan languages have a separate 'wolf' word independent from their >'coyote'/'dog' word? *If* no clear Proto-Siouan word that unequivocally >means 'coyote' can be reconstructed, then I guess that means that the >Proto-Siouans didn't have them, and that either some Siouans moved into the >range of them, or that coyotes themselves expanded their range (definitely >known to have happened at least over the last couple centuries). > >Dave Costa _________________________________________________________________ 전 세계 어디서나 모든 PC에서 내 PC처럼 사용할 수 있는 온라인상의 하드, MSN 웹하드를 클릭하세요. http://msn.webhard.co.kr From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:18:07 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:18:07 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the > teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or, > as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore > at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much > about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark, > but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. I came up with gash as a way to encode the notion of a lengthwise opening, which I think, all the forms considered, was the idea in the root. I hadn't thought of ma as the P1 marker, but I think that would be unparalleled in derivational patterns, and rather unusual typologically, too. I suppose the southern Athabascan and vicinity root might work, in spite of Willem's reservations, if 'mouth-split' part could be seen as having been added to distinguish one sort of ma from another. Goodness knows there are enough ma and magha, etc., roots in Siouan, but I'm not sure if the situation could actually produce confusion. Perhaps confusion isn't the only reason for adding distinguishing epithets. As far as evidence of mechanisms for borrowing, there are a certain number of Coyote stories known from Siouan contexts, though, of course, Coyote is not the central Trickster character in the Siouan literatures I know anything about. I suppose ma might just as readily be a Siouan root for what gets gashed or split. It might help to know more about the nomenclature and folklore of Coyote than I do. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:34:41 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:34:41 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- In-Reply-To: <00d901c22b84$b9e400c0$e2b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: As usual, Bob has a clarifying influence on things. It's true that we should be very careful about thinking of wa- detrans./indef. obj as 'stuff' or 'something' if it is detransivizing as opposed to an indefinite object, though the latter case seems to be essentially a term for 'stuff' or 'something'. I hadn't really noticed the inconsistency, perhaps because I was used to thinking of the detransitivizing as coming from the incorporation, as it were, of the 'something'. The issue I thought I was raising in regard to the idea that the 'something' might be somehow the head or focus of attention in the construction was whether the 'something; was specific or non-specific - a certain something or anything at al: a something the identity of which was known, or one the identity of which was irrelevant. On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > Each transitive verb in Hocank may take wa- > indicating a third person plural, ... the P NP is > optional.... > > I found this interesting. I don't remember any cases > in my Kaw data of the wa- being used with a nominal > object or patient present in the clause. If this is > possible, then the analysis of wa- as an > intransitivizer is simply wrong, wouldn't you say? Here I thought I had discerned that Johannes was referring to wa- in its capacity as a third person object pronominal - what he calls the definite wa- - and that could naturally occur with a nominal object, whereas the detransitivizing or indefinite wa- apparently does not. The first is found in Winnebago, Chiwere, and Dhegiha, and has a vicar in Dakotan in the form of wic^ha-, while the second is pan-Siouan. Bob, are you saying that third person object wa- doesn't co-occur with objects in Kaw, or that wa- detrans/indef doesn't? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:51:26 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:51:26 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <00fd01c22b86$3ad45080$e2b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't > it? I guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan > languages use a derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. I asked Victor Golla about Athabascan coyote terms. His comment from a California perspective was that they were a mass of replacements not resembling the term in question. The Dakotan forms certainly look like replacements, right down to a certain variability in how to say them. As far as 'canid' replacement terms, the Omaha-Ponca term is mi'kkasi, which I had always thought might have something to do with mikka' 'raccon', but, since si is 'foot', that not only leaves us with something more or less obscure (to me anyway), but neglects the difference in accent. If, for the sake of argument, I match the mi' with the ma'- in Dakotan, an irregular, but not unprecedented match, the remainder -kkasi still isn't clear. But perhaps this is telling me that the whole term isn't native? There's certainly nothing wrong with the phonology per se. It's just that the pieces don't seem to support any reasonably etymology within my admittedly shallow and non-native grasp of the language. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:59:59 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:59:59 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Thode Charles wrote: > The Dakota word for coyote is "Mica" pronounced /mii-cha/ > which differs from /shun-ka/ meaning 'dog' > /shunk-tok-cha/ from 'shunka tokeca' is the word for wolf. This matches the Omaha-Ponca mi'kka part, if it's an aspirated c, since mi'kka implies Proto Mississippi Valley Siouan *mihka (or some obstruent + obstruent cluster like *pk instead of *hk). The *mihka possibility would regularly come out mic^ha in Dakotan, with preaspiration was converted to aspiration, and the kh was affricated after i. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 06:04:51 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:04:51 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes (fwd) Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 rwd0002 at unt.edu wrote: > Note also that the ma', mba', ba' thing occurs in other languages of > the Southwest and is probably onomatopoeic, imitating the sound a > coyote makes. When inveigling sheep? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 06:38:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:38:21 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > I find it interesting that most Siouan languages don't have a totally > separate word for 'coyote' as opposed to 'dog'. Does this mean that there > isn't a clearly reconstructible Proto-Siouan word for 'coyote'? I'd say not, and that it wasn't surprising for the same reason that Algonquian lacks one. Not to mention any issue of avoidance. (OK, that was an accident!) On the other hand, there's not really any reconstructable term for 'wolf' distinct from 'dog' (and often, now, 'horse'). Terms for 'wolf' often come down to 'big canid' or 'wild canid'. Aside: Siouan languages are really good at making do with a rather minimal set of short noun roots and somewhat more numerous short verb roots, put to work on building a larger working vocabulary with the aid of intensive nominalization and/or compounding. This is why Proto-Siouanists end up with long lists of monosyllabic and bisyllabic roots combined with a handful of very busy verb affixes and enclitics. Even the bisyllabic roots are in many cases effectively monosyllabic, as the second syllable vowel seems to be almost an independent element saying 'it's a root'. Sometimes you get a glimmering of the processes that collapsed longer original forms into the attested monosyllables and bisyllables, and then you realize that the apocopated first syllable is just a prefix wa- anyway, or that the second syllable initial consonants of some verb roots show signs of being old d4erivational morphology, etc. > So Miami and Potawatomi use a formation that transparently means > 'common wolf', ... A verb meaning 'common' (or 'garden variety') is a common derivational element in Mississippi Valley Siouan, too. For example, 'common whiteman' = 'French' or 'common person' = 'Indian'. A similar element is 'very, true', e.g., 'true deer' = 'deer'. > Arapaho and Cheyenne, on the other hand, share a word ... Don't ask me > why 'coyote' should be called 'the one that opens it by tool'. I suspect someone with a knowledge of Coyote and/or Trickster stories could fathom this trope (or ken this kenning?). > Do most Siouan languages have a separate 'wolf' word independent from their > 'coyote'/'dog' word? *If* no clear Proto-Siouan word that unequivocally > means 'coyote' can be reconstructed, then I guess that means that the > Proto-Siouans didn't have them, and that either some Siouans moved into the > range of them, or that coyotes themselves expanded their range (definitely > known to have happened at least over the last couple centuries). I think I've answered the 'wolf' question, though I think that at least thw Crow-Hidtsa and Mandan people would have been in coyote territory for a long time (at least a 1000 years). I believe the eastward spread of the coyote is supposed to be connected with the demise of the wolf. Maybe the spread of the open environment of farmlands amnd suburbs is also relevant. That's supposed to explain the eastward spread of the red fox along with the present superabundance of genus Odocoileus deer. Archaeologists think Native Americans of the Midwestern area preferred the prairie and forest/prairie interface to forest and increased prairie by systematically burning over open areas to kill saplings, but Euroamerican farming and now suburbanization produces the same effect on a larger scale. Coyotes, foxes, and whitetails, among others (robins, cottontails), are pretty happy with small farms or suburbs full of open space. JEK From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 15 12:22:26 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:22:26 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the Potawatomi and Mascouten. Michael McCafferty From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Mon Jul 15 14:48:35 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:48:35 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: Bob wrote: > So to me, the fact that many of us find that a translation of wa- as 'something' or 'stuff' generally works, is irrelevant or even misleading. 'I ate something' and 'I ate stuff' are still transitive sentences. To speakers, they may be totally intransitive. How do we know which? ... But even in English (or better, in Montague grammar) the expression "eat-something" or "eat-stuff" is intransitive. You can't eat-stuff an apple. A transitive verb plus an object makes an intransitive expression. In this sense what we've been calling indefinite object and detransitivizer or valence reducer are in fact the same. How do we know whether something is actually intransitive? See whether it can take an(other) object. But I do agree that all the complex ins and outs of the various usages of wa- shouldn't be glossed over or trivialized, and that translation equivalents aren't necessarily relevant. Catherine From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Jul 15 16:16:27 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:16:27 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. David > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: >> >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > Michael McCafferty > > From boris at terracom.net Mon Jul 15 17:37:30 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:37:30 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Just an aside, in Kickapoo Voorhis indicates 'wolf' as "mahweea" and 'dog' as "anemwa". Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when > being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the > Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th > century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could > have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But > maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't > have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo > use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their > familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the > extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting > a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. > > David > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > >> > >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 15 18:08:29 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:08:29 +0100 Subject: coyotes etc Message-ID: Dear All: Regarding dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. there's Allan Taylor's note about dogs and wolves and metaphotical extensions for theor names in a note in IJAL in 1985 in the 'Hamp Festshcrift'. In parts of the Pacific Northwest it was considered ill luck to mention the creature at certain times of the year. Maybe this practice of avoidance was also found in part of the Plains and would explain the use of a noa term such as 'slasher' for it. Anthony Grant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 15 18:40:20 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:40:20 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the past couple of decades archaeologists have placed the Kickapoo-Sauk-Fox-Mascouten in late prehistory along the southern shores of Lake Erie, and then a later move into the eastern and southern Michigan soon before the curtain call. This would explain why that language did not have an inherent term for 'coyote'. On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when > being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the > Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th > century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could > have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But > maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't > have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo > use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their > familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the > extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting > a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. > > David > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > >> > >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 15 18:52:57 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:52:57 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: See: Stothers, David M. The Michigan Owasco and Iroquois Co-Tradition: Late Woodland Conflict, Conquest, and Cultural Realignment in the Western and Lower Great Lakes. Northeast Anthropology 49 (1995): 5-41. ____. Late Woodland Models for Cultural Development in Southern Michigan. In John R. Halsey, ed., Retrieving Michigans Buried Past, the Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 64. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1999. On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > In the past couple of decades archaeologists have placed the > Kickapoo-Sauk-Fox-Mascouten in late prehistory along the southern shores > of Lake Erie, and then a later move into the eastern and southern > Michigan soon before the curtain call. This would explain why that > language did not have an inherent term for 'coyote'. > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > > True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when > > being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the > > Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th > > century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could > > have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But > > maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't > > have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo > > use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their > > familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the > > extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting > > a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. > > > > David > > > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > >> > > >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > > >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > > >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > > >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > > >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > > >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > > > > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > > > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > > > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > > > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > > > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > 307 Memorial Hall > Indiana University > Bloomington, Indiana > 47405 > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > C.G. Jung > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > Rumi > > > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 16 03:35:39 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:35:39 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: > ... But even in English (or better, in Montague grammar) the expression "eat-something" or "eat-stuff" is intransitive. You can't eat-stuff an apple. A transitive verb plus an object makes an intransitive expression. Uh, no. Not in my vocabulary anyway. "Stuff" is a noun and the object of 'eat', even with a hyphen as I see it. Yes, I know I'm being a stick in the mud insisting on analyzing what's actually there, but I think it's best to assume that the Montague people were simply naive about the ways the world's languages can work. In English a verb may typically be either transitive or intransitive in many cases. 'Eat' and 'shoot' are good examples (Johannes pointed out that WI ruje means 'eat it', not 'eat'). In English we require no morphology in order to intransitivize; we just leave an object off and that's it. In Siouan, verbs that are inherently transitive, like 'eat', require a marker if the speaker uses them intransitively. That marker is wa-. Many languages are of this sort, and I have to believe that Montague grammarians simply were unaware of such superficial things about various American and African languages. > In this sense what we've been calling indefinite object and detransitivizer or valence reducer are in fact the same. I agree that some of the problem revolves around terminology. But I feel that for Siouan speakers it IS one or the other. Instances of incorporation (like "eat-stuff", as in *"eat-stuff an apple")are normally pre-posed to their verbs, as in "babysit", and the perfectly acceptable "I babysat John's little brother." Or the even more generic "I babysat John's new Toyota." I guess I don't feel we're justified in assuming that an invisible, imaginary superstructure of 'eat' in English includes 'stuff' without better evidence. > How do we know whether something is actually intransitive? See whether it can take an(other) object. Yes indeed, I think I mentioned how peculiar it seemed to me that verbs with intransitivizing wa- could take an overt (and definite yet) object in WI. If that's the case, then either: (a) Wa- is NOT a valence reducer or intransitivizer, or, (b) There is more than one wa-, and we're dealing with homophony, not polysemy. Taka you choice. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 06:11:25 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:11:25 -0600 Subject: Little People Message-ID: Assuming that the coyotes are now quiet - which they are not; I hear them nightly from my living room yipping up a storm in the open space - is anyone interested in discussing terms for 'the little people'? I was just looking some up, and found them about as opaque a lot of terms as any I've seen. The simplest was OP ni'da, apparently a simple root, which is defined in passing in Fletcher & LaFlesche as 'imp', but in Osage refers to 'elephant' by way of use to refer to the beast implied by the bones often found sticking out of banks. Peter LeClaire, one of Howard's sources on Ponca culture, mentions mong-thu-jah-the-gah 'In the mountain {the Big Horns?} the dwarves [are] found and dreaded as it [they?] leads them away at nights and last [they are ensorceled] until morning." The best I could make of that was maN=dhaN uj^aN=dhe egaN meaning, perhaps, 'like beautifully made arrowheads'. Mrs. Stabler offers niashiNga nushiaha, in which I am totally baffled by nushiaha. Then we have those Ioway-Otoe forms that were mentioned once already, I think: hompathroji and humpathroxje, from Jimm Good Tracks. JEK From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 16 10:21:58 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:21:58 -0400 Subject: Little People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: nushiaha means 'short' in Omaha. My dog is nushiaha. -Ardis On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > Assuming that the coyotes are now quiet - which they are not; I hear them > nightly from my living room yipping up a storm in the open space - is > anyone interested in discussing terms for 'the little people'? I was just > looking some up, and found them about as opaque a lot of terms as any I've > seen. > > The simplest was OP ni'da, apparently a simple root, which is defined in > passing in Fletcher & LaFlesche as 'imp', but in Osage refers to > 'elephant' by way of use to refer to the beast implied by the bones often > found sticking out of banks. > > Peter LeClaire, one of Howard's sources on Ponca culture, mentions > mong-thu-jah-the-gah 'In the mountain {the Big Horns?} the dwarves [are] > found and dreaded as it [they?] leads them away at nights and last [they > are ensorceled] until morning." The best I could make of that was > maN=dhaN uj^aN=dhe egaN meaning, perhaps, 'like beautifully made > arrowheads'. > > Mrs. Stabler offers niashiNga nushiaha, in which I am totally baffled by > nushiaha. > > Then we have those Ioway-Otoe forms that were mentioned once already, I > think: hompathroji and humpathroxje, from Jimm Good Tracks. > > JEK > > > From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 16 11:46:46 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:46:46 -0400 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to put 2 more cents in about this issue on 2 fronts. 1. Stuff vs. detransitivizer I am opposed to stuff being used here. I think it is a convenient calc based on English centered translation. That is: We want a one to one correspondence between English and Omaha morphemes so adding stuff give equality: wa-bth-atHe stuff-I-eat Detransitivizer isn't a very good English morpheme so it leaves us a bit empty. However, this is because English activities which are detransitivized ( from active accomplishments) are not marked with a morpheme. They are consistently marked by a LAck of object instead. Translation & elicitation make this especially clear. If you asked for 'I eat stuff' I BET you'd get 'AzhithoNthoN bthatHe' (I eat various-things). TO get 'wabthatHE' we ask 'how do you say 'I am eating.' Native speakers translate 'wabthatHe' as 'I am eating' if you ask. When asking for activities naturally, we don't try to add stuff. It is only when we try to do the one to one correspondance that we pop it in. THus, 'wa' does not LITERALLY mean stuff (azhithoNthoN), it means the thing added to a verb which detransitivizes or makes an accomplishment into an activity. 2. Aksionsart vs. Detransitivizer I really am less concerned with this issue as both describe the process going on. But I am convinced aksionsart is better for a number of reasons. (The best is last, sorry, it's hard to edit in PINE,unix) a. Activities and (active) accomplishments regularly correspond cross-linguistically, but I guess you could say transitives and dtransitivized transitives correspond regularly cross-linguistically? Perhaps it's two sides of a similar coin but the result of detransitivization is an intransitive, right? This is a more general term than activity (as is transitive vs. active accomplishment) and thus describes the results less precisely. You could fix this by calling it a detransitive, but this would be creating (at least Trask doesn't have such a term). Even then, a detransitive does not seem so specific activity. Activity predicts semantic structure. To convince me detransitive is better, I'd need to find a detransitive that uses 'wa' and is not an activity. I have no examples of this. b. The class of verbs which takes part in this alternation is not an open set and tends to be fairly consistent cross-linguistically. Not all transitives can take wa and detransitivize but all active accomplishments can. The verbs that undergo this are usually verbs of creation and consumption (VValin and LPolla). For example: I know the answer (transitive) and I know (intransitive) do NOT vary for 'wa.' Instead you get 'e' added to the verb for the intransitive (that is , the 'it' of I know it is added). That's because 'know' is a state not an accomplishment. The 'wa' doesn't detransitivize all the time. Only with active accomplishment-activity correspondences. c. I have more to add but maybe only if someone wants the details personally as I can get lengthy. Regards, Ardis On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > ... But even in English (or better, in Montague grammar) the expression > "eat-something" or "eat-stuff" is intransitive. You can't eat-stuff an > apple. A transitive verb plus an object makes an intransitive > expression. > > Uh, no. Not in my vocabulary anyway. "Stuff" is a noun and the object of > 'eat', even with a hyphen as I see it. Yes, I know I'm being a stick in the > mud insisting on analyzing what's actually there, but I think it's best to > assume that the Montague people were simply naive about the ways the world's > languages can work. In English a verb may typically be either transitive or > intransitive in many cases. 'Eat' and 'shoot' are good examples (Johannes > pointed out that WI ruje means 'eat it', not 'eat'). In English we require > no morphology in order to intransitivize; we just leave an object off and > that's it. In Siouan, verbs that are inherently transitive, like 'eat', > require a marker if the speaker uses them intransitively. That marker is > wa-. Many languages are of this sort, and I have to believe that Montague > grammarians simply were unaware of such superficial things about various > American and African languages. > > > In this sense what we've been calling indefinite object and > detransitivizer or valence reducer are in fact the same. > > I agree that some of the problem revolves around terminology. But I feel > that for Siouan speakers it IS one or the other. > > Instances of incorporation (like "eat-stuff", as in *"eat-stuff an > apple")are normally pre-posed to their verbs, as in "babysit", and the > perfectly acceptable "I babysat John's little brother." Or the even more > generic "I babysat John's new Toyota." I guess I don't feel we're justified > in assuming that an invisible, imaginary superstructure of 'eat' in English > includes 'stuff' without better evidence. > > > How do we know whether something is actually intransitive? See whether it > can take an(other) object. > > Yes indeed, I think I mentioned how peculiar it seemed to me that verbs with > intransitivizing wa- could take an overt (and definite yet) object in WI. > If that's the case, then either: > > (a) Wa- is NOT a valence reducer or intransitivizer, or, > > (b) There is more than one wa-, and we're dealing with homophony, not > polysemy. > > Taka you choice. > > Bob > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 16 13:20:03 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:20:03 -0500 Subject: Little People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > Assuming that the coyotes are now quiet - which they are not; I hear them > nightly from my living room yipping up a storm in the open space - is > anyone interested in discussing terms for 'the little people'? I was just > looking some up, and found them about as opaque a lot of terms as any I've > seen. > > > Peter LeClaire, one of Howard's sources on Ponca culture, mentions > mong-thu-jah-the-gah 'In the mountain {the Big Horns?} the dwarves [are] > found and dreaded as it [they?] leads them away at nights and last [they > are ensorceled] until morning." The best I could make of that was > maN=dhaN uj^aN=dhe egaN meaning, perhaps, 'like beautifully made > arrowheads'. I don't know if this is a thread, John, but the Christianized Chiracahua Apache children I used to teach in New Mexico referred to arrowheads as coming from the devil's workshop, as evil things. I was amazed. Michael McCafferty From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 14:20:57 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:20:57 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for all the suggestions. The connection to yaslec^a 'to split with the teeth' did occur to me, but it would seem to be applicable to almost any ravenous kind of beast. I must go back and check again on my source. I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. It just struck me as an odd name in view of the usually clear meanings of such things as heciNs^kayapi 'mountain sheep' (the one whose horns are used to make spoons) an nig^e saXla 'antelope' (one with the off-white stomach). Perhaps I shouldn't expect so much Bruce On 14 Jul 2002, at 11:36, Shannon West wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > Koontz John E > > Sent: July 13, 2002 9:31 PM > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. > > > > Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a. > > > > I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the > > flesh'. This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from > > ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a). The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or > > one of those ablauting nouns. This is actually saying the same thing, > > with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon. > > > > Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a. > > I checked Riggs for Dakota too. sde'-c^a sends you to kasdec^a, which means > "to split, as wood with an ax". I also happened to look up kas^dec^a which > he lists as a variant of kasdec^a. Ya-sde-c^a is listed as "to split with > the teeth", ya- being the instrumental 'with the teeth'. There is no entry > for mayas^dec^a or mayasdec^a. > > ---> > > I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth; > > a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is > > a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago > > forms, or OP ma[a]=). I guess that's not very likely, since there's > > already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental. (Is the instrumental maya-?) The > > mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan, > > though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka > > suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally). > > > > If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of > > looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to > > resolve obscurities. True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by > > looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse! > > Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the > teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or, > as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore > at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much > about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark, > but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. > > Next time I talk to any Nakota speakers, I'll ask about this term. I don't > seem to have it in my notes. > > Shannon > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 14:34:57 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:34:57 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes mica is interesting too. Again it doesn't seem to be transparent as a derivation. While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word mnaja (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. Being English I don't know what a wolverine is except remembering it as an epithet for a Michigan Regiment in the Civil war led by General Custer played by Errol Flynn. I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. Buechel doesn't have it and I managed to miss entering it in my dictionary. Do other Lakotanists know of this word or any cognates? Do Lakota speakers recognize it as a Lakota word? Bruce On 14 Jul 2002, at 21:15, Thode Charles wrote: > The Dakota word for coyote is "Mica" pronounced /mii-cha/ > which differs from /shun-ka/ meaning 'dog' > /shunk-tok-cha/ from 'shunka tokeca' is the word for wolf. > > Charles H. Thode > ishnashunktokcha (lone wolf) > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 16 15:32:25 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:32:25 -0500 Subject: coyotes Message-ID: > Yes mica is interesting too. The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. I don't know of -mikka is a noun or adjectival verb stem. Actually, in Kaw the coyote is more commonly a diminutive: $oNmikkase-hinga, with the noun alone more commonly 'wolf', but as wolves are no longer present in the southern plains, the term now is/was used for coyote. I've never run across a term for Wolverine. It's a northern animal, and I doubt there were distinct terms for it in Dhegiha languages. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 15:47:51 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:47:51 -0700 Subject: coyotes Message-ID: So, is mikka/micha perhaps the reconstructible Mississippi Valley Siouan name for the coyote? ---------- >From: "Rankin, Robert L" >To: "'siouan at lists.colorado.edu '" >Subject: RE: coyotes >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 8:32 am > > >> Yes mica is interesting too. > > The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo > replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" > 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. I don't > know if -mikka is a noun or adjectival verb stem. Actually, in Kaw the > coyote is more commonly a diminutive: $oNmikkase-hinga, with the noun alone > more commonly 'wolf', but as wolves are no longer present in the southern > plains, the term now is/was used for coyote. > > I've never run across a term for Wolverine. It's a northern animal, and I > doubt there were distinct terms for it in Dhegiha languages. > > Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 15:56:49 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:56:49 -0600 Subject: Little People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I don't know if this is a thread, John, but the Christianized Chiracahua > Apache children I used to teach in New Mexico referred to arrowheads > as coming from the devil's workshop, as evil things. I was amazed. I wonder if this is a piece with the northern Plains conception that arrowheads were created by Trickster? I think conflict between groups is considered to be one of his presents, too. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:00:43 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:00:43 -0600 Subject: coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > So, is mikka/micha perhaps the reconstructible Mississippi Valley Siouan > name for the coyote? Possibly, though I don't know at the moment if it's attested in Winnebago and Ioway-Otoe. The nearly homophonous raccoon term is. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:01:45 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:01:45 -0600 Subject: coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo > replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" > 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. What do you make of the -se, which matches the -si in Omaha-Ponca? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:13:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:13:27 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D343D21.13090.83D712@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word > mnaja (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. Being English I don't know what > a wolverine is except remembering it as an epithet for a Michigan > Regiment in the Civil war led by General Custer played by Errol > Flynn. I thought Custer was in the regular army in the cavalry? Michigan is called the Wolverine State, I think. > I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. A wolverine is to a marten as a tank is to a sportscar, though I'm not sure whether this conception would meet with the approval of the taxonomists. In northern North America there's an intermediate of sorts, a large, darkish martern called variously a fisher or a pekan, or sometimes, a cat. I think that the French in particular called things like raccoons, fishers, and skunks chats. Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to underlie the 'wild cat' conception in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' that I think might refer to a skunk or a fisher or maybe a wolverine - perhaps one of the Missouria names? I've forgotten the actual name, too, awkwardly enough. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 16:10:50 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:10:50 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes I've always thought that Lakota looks suspiciously like a language which has recently been agglutinated from an earlier monsyllabic isolating stage, almost like a language that has been recently 'reworked'. It probably isn't that simple, but it has that look about it. Bruce On 15 Jul 2002, at 0:38, Koontz John E wrote: > > Aside: Siouan languages are really good at making do with a rather > minimal set of short noun roots and somewhat more numerous short verb > roots, put to work on building a larger working vocabulary with the aid of > intensive nominalization and/or compounding. This is why Proto-Siouanists > end up with long lists of monosyllabic and bisyllabic roots combined with > a handful of very busy verb affixes and enclitics. Even the bisyllabic > roots are in many cases effectively monosyllabic, as the second syllable > vowel seems to be almost an independent element saying 'it's a root'. > Sometimes you get a glimmering of the processes that collapsed longer > original forms into the attested monosyllables and bisyllables, and then > you realize that the apocopated first syllable is just a prefix wa- > anyway, or that the second syllable initial consonants of some verb roots > show signs of being old d4erivational morphology, etc. From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue Jul 16 16:18:19 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:18:19 -0500 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: Ok, here's another question sparked off by the recent IJAL article. This one is really totally irrelevant to Johannes' point, just something he mentioned in passing -- I almost hesitate to bring it up for fear it'll be seen as an unfair criticism of the article. So Johannes, if you're reading this, it's really just a question! I was interested in the brief discussion of relative clauses starting on p. 11, and especially the structure (22) which shows the Hocank relative clause as having an external head: N-head [null relativizer Predicate-Determiner] with the part in [...] being the relative clause. This is pretty surprising for a Siouan language -- relative clauses in Lakota, Crow, Hidatsa, Omaha are internal-headed. (Though of course it's possible to have both internal and external headed relatives in the same family, or even in the same language... as far as I know no Siouan language has been shown to have clearly external-headed relatives.) So it would be really interesting if Hocank does have this structure. What I'm wondering is -- did Helmbrecht just assume the external-head structure, or is there actually evidence for it in Hocank? The few examples given are inconclusive; none of them have more than one constituent besides the predicate, so it's not possible to distinguish N [ predicate] from [N predicate]. What happens if instead of just "the meat I cooked" (23b) we have "the meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked yesterday" -- does "meat" necessarily come at the beginning, or can you have orders like [my mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat I-cooked determiner] where "meat" is a clearly internal head? If "meat" has to be first, it would argue for the external-head structure. One indication in (23b) that the head is actually external might be the definite determiner on "meat", given the apparently universal fact that internal heads of RCs must be indefinite (Williamson's indefiniteness restriction).... The indefiniteness restriction is robust enough and has enough raison d'etre -- required to allow operator binding to work right, etc. -- that I'd take it seriously as an argument. Any thoughts? Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:24:23 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:24:23 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D3439D9.77.77076E@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, or some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date properly. There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and Siouan, the 'metal' term. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 16:26:49 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:26:49 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think in the film it was a cavalry regiment from Michigan nicknamed 'the wolverines'. Now I know why. It strikes me taht the word as used by Bushotter in Lakota is therefore quite unusual. It is not mentioned at all by Deloria Bruce On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:13, Koontz John E wrote: > I thought Custer was in the regular army in the cavalry? Michigan is > called the Wolverine State, I think. > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 16:30:02 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:30:02 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is the Avonlea culture? Bruce On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:24, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. > > Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, or > some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish > encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The > Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic > assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the > Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to > Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of > the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. > The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. > > The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early > Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota > sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date properly. > There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and Siouan, > the 'metal' term. > > JEK > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 16:58:16 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:58:16 -0700 Subject: black cats and rats de bois Message-ID: > A wolverine is to a marten as a tank is to a sportscar, though I'm not sure > whether this conception would meet with the approval of the taxonomists. In > northern North America there's an intermediate of sorts, a large, darkish > marten called variously a fisher or a pekan, or sometimes, a cat. Actually, 'fisher' is the standard modern English name. The main vernacular English name I'm aware of is 'black cat' (accent on 'black', like a compound). 'Pekan' is borrowed from French, which they appear to have gotten from some northern New England Algonquian language (cf. Micmac /pqamk/, Maliseet /p at k@mk/, Penobscot /pa'kamke/; '@' = schwa). That's not the reconstructible Proto-Algonquian name for the animal, though (PA */wecye:ka/). The marten and fisher are indeed different animals, tho the French missionaries sometimes merge them. > I think that the French in particular called things like raccoons, fishers, > and skunks chats. In my experience, the French 'Algonquianist missionaries' called the raccoon 'chat sauvage', and the fisher 'pecan'. They might have been more variable about skunks, tho the Illinois missionaries at least called them 'be(s)te puante'. They tended to call the possum 'rat de bois'. Can't recall at the moment what they called the wolverine, but that's found in Europe as well. All in all, the French terms for animals that weren't found in Europe actually seem to be pretty consistent. > Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to underlie the 'wild cat' conception > in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' > that I think might refer to a skunk or a fisher If they got the species identification correct (a big if), it's the fisher. If Lewis and Clark didn't call skunks skunks (a term that's been used in English a LONG time) they probably would have called it 'pole cat'. That's only the striped skunk, tho, the spotted skunk is called the 'civet cat' by almost everyone who knows about them. Dave From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:02:03 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:02:03 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Bruce The Avonlea complex was centered in southern Saskatchewan, also occurs in Alberta, and western Manitoba, with a probability of northern North Dakota. Websites on the Avonlea complex are: http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/wo odland/avonlea.html http://www.heritage-online.net/Timeline/avonlea.htm Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the wolverine occurred as far south as 37°N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), also I believe that the wolverine was encountered by Lewis and Clark on their trip. Just imagine a 50-100kg animal, as fast as a cat but with the temper of a cranky badger. Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:30 AM Subject: RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is > the Avonlea culture? > Bruce > On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:24, Koontz John E wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > > > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. > > > > Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, or > > some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish > > encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The > > Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic > > assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the > > Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to > > Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of > > the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. > > The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. > > > > The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early > > Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota > > sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date properly. > > There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and Siouan, > > the 'metal' term. > > > > JEK > > > > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 17:02:46 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:02:46 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? ---------- >From: "Alan Knutson" >To: >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > wolverine occurred as far south as 37°N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), From simpsond at email.arizona.edu Tue Jul 16 17:10:24 2002 From: simpsond at email.arizona.edu (Erik) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:10:24 -0500 Subject: Little People Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I don't know if this is a thread, John, but the Christianized Chiracahua > Apache children I used to teach in New Mexico referred to arrowheads > as coming from the devil's workshop, as evil things. I was amazed. >I wonder if this is a piece with the northern Plains conception that >arrowheads were created by Trickster? I think conflict between groups is >considered to be one of his presents, too. > >JEK I believe the general Apachean belief on arrowheads is they come from lightning. From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:18:05 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:18:05 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/12248 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? > > ---------- > >From: "Alan Knutson" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > > > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37°N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), > > From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:21:06 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:21:06 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: David Just to mention that map on the website is its current distribution, historically it was much wider (i.e. as far south as 37°N in North America). Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Knutson" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/12248 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Costa" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > > > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? > > > > ---------- > > >From: "Alan Knutson" > > >To: > > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > > > > > > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37°N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), > > > > > > From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:26:22 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:26:22 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Another website that deals with the historical distribution of the wolverine can be found at: http://www.predatorconservation.org/predator_info/Forest_Clearinghouse/Wolve rine/wolv1-1.htm The website also has further references to other sources(hard copy). Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? > > ---------- > >From: "Alan Knutson" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > > > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37°N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 17:26:09 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:26:09 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Yes, I noticed that what the map said was wildly at variance with that 37°N business. Information on original pre-European distribution of animals is often hard to come by, tho. ---------- >From: "Alan Knutson" >To: >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:21 am > > David > > Just to mention that map on the website is its current distribution, > historically it was much wider (i.e. as far south as 37°N in North America). > > Alan K > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Knutson" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:18 PM > Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > >> http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/12248 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Costa" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >> >> >> > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? >> > >> > ---------- >> > >From: "Alan Knutson" >> > >To: >> > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >> > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am >> > > >> > >> > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or >> > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the >> > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37°N (northern boundary of > Oklahoma), >> > >> > >> >> > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 16 18:19:19 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:19:19 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: en francais, 'wolverine' is " carcajou," which seems of indigenous origin. On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word > > mnaja (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. Being English I don't know what > > a wolverine is except remembering it as an epithet for a Michigan > > Regiment in the Civil war led by General Custer played by Errol > > Flynn. > > I thought Custer was in the regular army in the cavalry? Michigan is > called the Wolverine State, I think. > > > I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. > > A wolverine is to a marten as a tank is to a sportscar, though I'm not > sure whether this conception would meet with the approval of the > taxonomists. In northern North America there's an intermediate of sorts, a > large, darkish martern called variously a fisher or a pekan, or sometimes, > a cat. I think that the French in particular called things like raccoons, > fishers, and skunks chats. Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to > underlie the 'wild cat' conception in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in > Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' that I think might refer to a > skunk or a fisher or maybe a wolverine - perhaps one of the Missouria > names? I've forgotten the actual name, too, awkwardly enough. > > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 16 18:22:43 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:22:43 -0500 Subject: black cats and rats de bois In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > In my experience, the French 'Algonquianist missionaries' called the raccoon > 'chat sauvage', standard for all French in les Pays d'en haut. and the fisher 'pecan'. They might have been more variable > about skunks, tho the Illinois missionaries at least called them 'be(s)te > puante'. yes. precisely. stinking beast They tended to call the possum 'rat de bois'. Yes. exactly. woodrat Michael McCafferty From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 16 19:10:47 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:10:47 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: Dear all: I assume Lewis and Clark referred to skunks as pole cats/polecats because both animals emit vile odo(u)rs and are rather vicious - in shortt they share some salient if disagrreable characteristics. Yes, Bruce, Michigan is indeed the Wolverine State. (I knew that Ohio was the Buckeye State but it took me a long time to find out that buckeye is what we Brits normally call horse chestnut). As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised French forms for 'the English', etc. Anthony Grant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 19:40:09 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:40:09 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D34581A.14686.ED3413@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is > the Avonlea culture? The set including maza is the set in question. I think that set is regular in Siouan, but I forget at the moment. Mostly west of Minnesota, across the Canadian Prairies and down into Montana and the Dakotas, by my recollection. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 16 20:26:06 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:26:06 -0500 Subject: coyotes Message-ID: "Root extension" unless the Dakotan form had it too. I have no idea. We need to ID the *mihka part. I'd guess it's adjectival in function. Does 'coon' have nasalization in Dakota too? If not, then I don't think there's a connection. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Sent: 7/16/02 11:01 AM Subject: RE: coyotes On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo > replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" > 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. What do you make of the -se, which matches the -si in Omaha-Ponca? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 04:34:29 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:34:29 -0600 Subject: PS 'raccoon' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > We need to ID the *mihka part. I'd guess it's adjectival in function. Does > 'coon' have nasalization in Dakota too? If not, then I don't think there's > a connection. Te wic^ha' PreDa *wikha' OP mikka' Ks mikka' Os mihka' Qu mikka' PDh *mi(N)hka IO mi(N)khe' Wi [wake'] {Reformulated from miNke' or wike' cf. treatment of 'rabbit'?} PCh ? PMV *wi(N)h-ka {-ka added to many animal names and other nouns} Of iya' {< *wih-a with loss of h and epenthetic y?} Tu wiha' PSE *wiha PS *wiha' (Bob might want to check the Tutelo. I can't make it out with my Windows fonts!) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 05:59:52 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:59:52 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, I can explain the -si's and maybe the miNh, too. JEK Sa mi'c^[h]a Thode Te s^uNma(N)ni(N)tu 'wandering (wild) dog' I see that Buechel gives mi'c^[h]aksic^a 'a small wolf'. Williams gives mi'c^[h]a, and mi'c^[h]aksic^a, for 'coyote'. Riggs gives both forms with the gloss 'a small species of wolf'. I suspect Buechel's listing is from Riggs. Incidentally, what is the distribution of ksic^a as 'small' in Dakotan? This is probably the explanation of the -si in Dhegiha, since *ksika > *sika. PreDa *mi(N)'kha (ksika) < PMV *miNh-ka ksika OP mi(N)'kkasi Ks s^oN'mi(N)kkase Os s^o[N]'mi(N)hkasi Qu [not available to me at present] PDh *s^oN(k)mi(N)hka si < PMV *s^uNk mih-ka ksika IO ma(N)nik[h]ai Wi maNaNniN'kaksik PCh *maNaNniNkha ksike < PMV *maNaNniNh-ka ksika The IO and Wi forms, taken in connection with the Ks and Os forms obviously provide a way to connect the *s^uNk mi(N)h-ka forms with the *s^uNk maNaNniN ones, by offering the possibility that *miNh-ka is an irregular contraction of *maNaNnih-ka. It's very interesting that adding the noun formant -ka to *maNaNniN presumably 'to walk' requires the -h. In fact, it's a little puzzling. One wonders if there might not be some mergers or reanalysis going on instead. Perhaps the maNaN of maNaNniN is connected with the maN in Dakotan (Teton) forms with maN, cf. maNyas^lec^a. PMV *s^uNk (miNh-ka | maNaNniNh-ka | (?) maNaNh-ka) ksika canine ??? wild, wandering coyote small From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 07:43:48 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:43:48 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: > I was interested in the brief discussion of relative clauses starting > on p. 11, and especially the structure (22) which shows the Hocank > relative clause as having an external head: N-head [null relativizer > Predicate-Determiner] with the part in [...] being the relative > clause. I noticed this, too, and it was on my list of things to ask about when the opportunity arose. I'm glad that Catherine asked instead of me, though, because she did a much better job of phrasing this difficult question and discussing the pros and cons of it than I would have. Incidentally, I believe Johannes has the honor of being the first in print with a discussion of Winnebago relative clauses. A separate but connected issue that occurs to me is to wonder to what extent -ra marks definiteness. It's something I've wondered about before, but it hadn't occurred to me that it might influence the analysis of relative clauses. > What happens if instead of just "the meat I cooked" (23b) we have "the > meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked yesterday" -- does "meat" > necessarily come at the beginning, or can you have orders like [my > mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat I-cooked determiner] > where "meat" is a clearly internal head? If "meat" has to be first, > it would argue for the external-head structure. I may have some examples that bear on this, from Lipkind's texts. As always, I may have put the length in wrong or done something else wrong trying to convert Lipkind's notation to Miner's. p. 59 ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. I finished it DEC Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here]. Strictly speaking, this is a noun clause, but I think the principle is the same. I think the head is, if anything, ware' 'work'. p. 58 - a similar case, though the governing verb functions as a conjunction 'while'. hiaN'j^=iNhi=wi'=ra jaagu' hamiNiNnaN'g=ire'= ska=naNk=?uN' father our DEF something he sat on he thought DUB SIT DO hiperes=ji'= naNk=s^e to know he arrived SIT QUOTE Approximately: "While our father may have thought he was sitting on something, he had an insight (came to a conclusion? realized something?)." Lipkind's interlinear is "our father what while sitting on he didn't know he came to know" I guess I'd better look further. Maybe there are some relevant examples in Radin's texts? I did notice under subordinating suffixes in Lipkind (p. 41) some cases that I took to be relativizations on object with =re. waniN'k t?e=ra'= re bird die you made it REL? 'the bird that you killed' naNaN'=tuz= re wood I took it REL? 'the wood that I took' Apparently not relativized on the object: pee'c^wac^ kiri=kjanaN= re train it will come back REL 'the train that is to come' From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 17 12:51:59 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:51:59 -0500 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <006a01c22cfc$9ac3d020$2e5001d5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: Algonquians from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi refer to Frenchman as 'wood-watercraft-person', as in Montagnais /m at stuku:Su/, Potawatomi /wemt at goZi/ and Illinois /me:htiko:Sia/. The traditional interepretation of this ethnonym asigns it the English translation "dugout canoe person". In my estimation, this gloss was a later, secondary meaning; the original sense, since the term dates to the very earliest contact between St. Lawrence river Algonquians and the French, would seem to be the latter's wooden and ships. Michael McCafferty On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Dear all: > > I assume Lewis and Clark referred to skunks as pole cats/polecats because both animals emit vile odo(u)rs and are rather vicious - in shortt they share some salient if disagrreable characteristics. > > Yes, Bruce, Michigan is indeed the Wolverine State. (I knew that Ohio was the Buckeye State but it took me a long time to find out that buckeye is what we Brits normally call horse chestnut). > > As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised French forms for 'the English', etc. > > Anthony Grant > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 15:45:52 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:45:52 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Clarification: On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra > o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF > > tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. > I finished it DEC > > Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here]. Note that the iNgigi enclitic is the reflexive possessive (or suus) of the causative, which is what the gloss 'he made me his own' was intended to convey. However, better would have been 'he made me (his own)', circumlocution due to Dorsey. In other words, 'he made me, who am his own'. (Is that even grammatical!?) 'Me' belongs to (is kin to) 'he'. I hope people get the idea. JEK From Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Wed Jul 17 16:06:02 2002 From: Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:06:02 +0200 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, I would like to respond to the questions Catherine brought up with regard to my remarks on relative clauses in Hocank in my recent IJAL paper. The questions are important because they touch on the constituent structure (and syntactic categories) in Hocank - and the answers may be of relevance for linguists working on other Siouan languages too. First of all, I did not intend to presuppose a definite answer to the question whether the nominal head is internal or external in Hocank relative clauses with the formula I used in the paper. The brackets in N-Head [Rel=zero predicate - Det] were not intended to suppose that N heads are external in Hocank. The question whether the head noun is internal or external was not important for the argumentation in my paper in that paragraph. In addition, I rather tend to assume that the nominal head belongs to the relative clause having constituet status as a whole. But since I did not investigate this question systematically, I am left with assumptions. Instead of talking about my feelings on this question I would like to present some facts about Hocank relative clauses which might lead to a definitive answer, or to further questions (both results are fine). At least, it should come out why it is difficult to answer this question. What I wanted to stress with the formula is the fact that word order is pretty fixed in Hocank RCs. The order is always Noun Head - Predicate - Determiner and this order exactly replicates the order in the ordinary noun phrase in Hocank except that the determiner is not obligatory. Permutations in this order are not accepted by Hocank consultants. In (1)a there is an example of a transitive clause including a RC modifying the subject noun huNuNc^ 'bear'. In (1)b-c, it is shown that the predicate of the RC cannot be moved before the head noun, and it seems to be the case that the adverbial particle gojá 'over there' needs to appear betwen head noun and predicate. What is possible is the permutation of the whole RC behind the predicate of the main clause, cf. (1)d. (1)a huNuNc^-zí- ra gojá hac^a-rá hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN bear- brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF me-chased-started-DECL The brown bear I saw over there started to chase me. (1)b *gojá hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra ... (1)c *hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra gojá (1)d hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN huNuNc^-zí- ra gojá hac^a-rá me-chased-started-DECL bear-brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF He started to chase me, the bear I saw over there. The examples demonstrate that the RC in Hocank has to be considered as a constituent, there is no possibility to separate the head noun from the predicate nor to change the order between them. These results parallel exactly the situation in NPs in Hocank. The head noun is followed by the modifier(s) and the article marks the end of the noun phrase (an exception are numerals which may follow the article). This structure is also reminiscent to the normal word order in independent clauses in Hocank with the clausal predicate strictly following the NPs in subject and object function (however, we find alternative marked constructions here). Hence, the RC resembles a nominalized clause, and the fact that the definite article -ra and the subordinating element -ra are homonym supports the idea that there is a historical connection. However, it might be interesting to note that -ra is not the only subordinating element. There is a set of three (attributive) demonstrative pronouns which may appear in the same structural position. These demonstratives are combinations of the so-called positional auxiliaries -naNk (be.sitting), -jee (be.standing), and -aNK (be.lying) plus an element -re (this 'proximate') or -ga (that 'distal'). The interesting thing about these forms is that they create a kind of positional classification of the referent of the noun they are attached to. Now, if they are used as subordinating forms as suffixes to the embedded verb, they always classify the head noun, no matter which semantic/ syntactic role this constituent may have in the RC, cf. the example in (2) (2) huNuNc^- rá gojá hac^a-jéga bear- DEF over there I.seeing.it-DEM('distal'; standing) hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN me-chase- start-DECL The bear I am seeing over there (standing) starts to chase me. In exampl (2) the bear is the direct object of the verb 'to see' in the RC and the attr. demonstrative classifies the bear as a standing one. If the bear were head noun and subject of the RC this demonstrative had the same effect. This demonstrates the close syntactic bond of the elements within the RC and the head noun, and it is a further similiarity to the ordinary NP where these attributive demonstratives have the same function (to classify the referent of the NP with regard to position and to mark the NP as definite) Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun would be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for external headedness, but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then this is the case in Hocank. The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head noun with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, the head noun almost always carries a definite article. I browsed through my notes to find examples with no definite article on the head noun and I could find examples for this only if the embedded predicate has a attributive demonstartive of the type shown in (2). In this case, the def article on the head noun seems to be optional. But I have the impression, that the head noun is still definite, even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct that internal heads of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of RC are clearly external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not clear to me either. Well, as usual, I leave all people alone with my observations still not being able to draw clear conclusions. I would like to encourage everybody to enter this discussion. Unfortunately, I am out of town for a few weeks which means that I won't be able to respond or to provide further data. Anyway, I am curious to see how you Catherine and perhaps others would comment the Hocank facts. Johannes Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC schrieb: > Ok, here's another question sparked off by the recent IJAL article. This > one is really totally irrelevant to Johannes' point, just something he > mentioned in passing -- I almost hesitate to bring it up for fear it'll be > seen as an unfair criticism of the article. So Johannes, if you're > reading this, it's really just a question! I was interested in the brief > discussion of relative clauses starting on p. 11, and especially the > structure (22) which shows the Hocank relative clause as having an external > head: N-head [null relativizer Predicate-Determiner] with the part in > [...] being the relative clause. This is pretty surprising for a Siouan > language -- relative clauses in Lakota, Crow, Hidatsa, Omaha are > internal-headed. (Though of course it's possible to have both internal and > external headed relatives in the same family, or even in the same > language... as far as I know no Siouan language has been shown to have > clearly external-headed relatives.) So it would be really interesting if > Hocank does have this structure. > > What I'm wondering is -- did Helmbrecht just assume the external-head > structure, or is there actually evidence for it in Hocank? The few > examples given are inconclusive; none of them have more than one > constituent besides the predicate, so it's not possible to distinguish N [ > predicate] from [N predicate]. What happens if instead of just "the meat > I cooked" (23b) we have "the meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked > yesterday" -- does "meat" necessarily come at the beginning, or can you > have orders like [my mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat > I-cooked determiner] where "meat" is a clearly internal head? If "meat" > has to be first, it would argue for the external-head structure. One > indication in (23b) that the head is actually external might be the > definite determiner on "meat", given the apparently universal fact that > internal heads of RCs must be indefinite (Williamson's indefiniteness > restriction).... The indefiniteness restriction is robust enough and has > enough raison d'etre -- required to allow operator binding to work right, > etc. -- that I'd take it seriously as an argument. > > Any thoughts? > Catherine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Johannes.Helmbrecht.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Johannes Helmbrecht URL: From munro at ucla.edu Wed Jul 17 16:16:57 2002 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:16:57 -0700 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: Maybe I can be the first to ask what happens when there is a noun subject on an object-headed RC in Hocank (e.g. 'the bear the man saw....'). We'd all like to know! Headless RCs are such a puzzle. Pam From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jul 17 17:15:04 2002 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:15:04 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > en francais, 'wolverine' is " carcajou," which seems of indigenous > origin. Random House Dict. (ed. 2) has Can. Fr. < Montagnais kwa:hkwa:ce:w Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 17 18:37:17 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:37:17 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D35A618.3BBE0D30@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Alan. It sure didn't sound French. :) On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > > > en francais, 'wolverine' is " carcajou," which seems of indigenous > > origin. > > Random House Dict. (ed. 2) has > > Can. Fr. < Montagnais kwa:hkwa:ce:w > > Alan > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 19:38:44 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:44 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: <3D3595EA.1ADC35D4@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > First of all, I did not intend to presuppose a definite answer to the > question whether the nominal head is internal or external in Hocank > relative clauses with the formula I used in the paper. I've noticed that (a) Siouanists are a bit diffident about the internally headed relative clauses in Siouan languages, and (b) non-Siouanists (of certain stripes) are a bit inclined to encourage this diffidence. ("You claim the relative clauses in X work how? There must be some mistake!") > However, it might be interesting to note that -ra is not the only > subordinating element. There is a set of three (attributive) > demonstrative pronouns which may appear in the same structural > position. These demonstratives are combinations of the so-called > positional auxiliaries -naNk (be.sitting), -jee (be.standing), and > -aNK (be.lying) plus an element -re (this 'proximate') or -ga (that > 'distal'). Ah, then this explains the =re morpheme I exemplified from Lipkind. Incidentally, I'm thinking that the contention I made there that noun clauses generally work like relative clauses comes to me from Johannes, or possibly Catherine. > Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her > contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the > head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun > would be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for > external headedness, but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then > this is the case in Hocank. I think Catherine waffled on this to some extent herself. I suppose the issue is that if the head is at the margin and you're trying to justify putting it inside the margin, it helps if you can show that something clearly within the margin is "outside" of it (outer-more than it??). > The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head > noun with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, > the head noun almost always carries a definite article. Which makes it useful to know for sure if we know that -ra marks definitenes. Suppose it marked something like referentiality/specificity? > ... but I have the impression, that the head noun is still definite, > even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct that internal heads > of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of RC are clearly > external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not clear to me > either. I think maybe what Catherine is getting at here is not that the head is indefinite as such, but that the definiteness of the head is marked on the clause as a whole, providing an argument for internal status of the head. And, if I am correctly anticipating the next step, we can argue that the determiner itself is not the head if we can show that it is optional. JEK From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jul 17 22:47:59 2002 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:47:59 -0500 Subject: black cats and rats de bois Message-ID: Dave Costa : > > Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to underlie the 'wild cat' conception > > in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' > > that I think might refer to a skunk or a fisher > > If they got the species identification correct (a big if), it's the fisher. > If Lewis and Clark didn't call skunks skunks (a term that's been used in > English a LONG time) they probably would have called it 'pole cat'. _Jrnls. Lewis & Clark Exped._ 3.211: "Roop-tar-hee or Second Village of the Mandans[:] 1st and Grand Chief--Pass-cop-sa-he or black Cat" [cf. Maximilian's Mandan schonta-pussa 'fisher', matoka 'wolverene'] L & C do call skunks "polecats". (They were numerous along the Columbia during salmon season.) Alan From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Thu Jul 18 02:37:55 2002 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:37:55 -0700 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <006a01c22cfc$9ac3d020$2e5001d5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: For whatever it's worth, the Caddo word for the little people is yahyashattsi?. That's in the popular orthography, where h is murmured (an interesting feature of Caddo phonetics), sh is the shibilant, ts is properly an affricate, and ? a glottal stop. The suffix -tsi? is indeed a diminutive, but I have no idea what yahyashat- might have come from. It's interesting to hear that somebody once used it for white people. Maybe it was used derisively? Those Spaniards may have been short, compared to the Caddos. Wally --On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:10 PM +0100 Anthony Grant wrote: > As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that > 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her > 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself > a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and > suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the > first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one > long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any > records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan > languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I > know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised > French forms for 'the English', etc. > Anthony Grant From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 18 05:16:06 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:16:06 -0600 Subject: Wolverines (Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes) In-Reply-To: <3D343D21.13090.83D712@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word mnaja > (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. ... I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota > Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. ... I looked in the Siouan Archives files, and in various dictionaries and, other than the Bushotter and Riggs references found only a Stoney form mnazan. I suppose the -n is the diminutive. I think the fricative shoift is normal. I also checked under 'lion', 'cat', and possible phonological matches without luck. I'd expect something like *naNz^e in Dhegiha or Ioway-Otoe, and like *naNaNs^ in Winnebago, though I also looked in Omaha-Ponca under *bdhaNz^e and in Winnebago under *pa(N)naNs^, just in case. This doesn't mean there isn't some attestation out there. I did notice "shanmonikasi" as a variant for 'wolf, prairie wolf, coyote' in IO, attributed to Maximilian. I also think I saw the Bushotter reference in question. Interestingly, it was a list of animals, and between 'badger' and 'lion' were ma'yas^lec^a, s^uNkmanitu, and s^uNkmanitu thaNka. In the interlinear these were glossed 'coyotes, wolves, and large wolves', and in the free they were glossed 'coyotes, foxes'. I suppose we can take 'lion' as a way of saying (in English) 'big cat', consistent with 'cat' as a generic preditor term. JEK From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Thu Jul 18 14:37:07 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:37:07 -0500 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: This gets a bit long and messy... perhaps a key will help. SO -- Johannes' words have >, John's replies have nothing, and my (Catherine's) replies have ##. > Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her > contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the > head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun > would be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for > external headedness, but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then > this is the case in Hocank. I think Catherine waffled on this to some extent herself. I suppose the issue is that if the head is at the margin and you're trying to justify putting it inside the margin, it helps if you can show that something clearly within the margin is "outside" of it (outer-more than it??). ##Yes, exactly. Pam's question about "what happens when there is a noun subject on an object-headed RC in Hocank (e.g. 'the bear (that)the man saw....')" is a good example of this. If it can be "man-bear-saw-def", corresponding to a normal sentence "man-bear-saw" meaning 'the man saw the bear', it strongly indicates that the head "bear" internal to the relative clause. (I won't say it absolutely PROVES it -- there's the remote possibility of some sort of topicalization of "man" (as for that man, the bear he saw was...) etc. -- but it's a very very strong indication, especially if it's a semantically/pragmatically unmarked order.) On the other hand, if it turns out that only the order "bear-man-saw-def" is possible, it again doesn't prove anything, but it does make an external-head analysis more likely. The head "bear" could be obligatorily first because it is actually outside the clause, or it could be that, for information-structure reasons (the head being the topic of the relative clause, presumably)it has to come first but is still within the clause. There -- that's completely muddied the waters, right? John said it more clearly: the issue is whether something clearly belonging to the clause ("within the margin") can precede the head or not. Looking at the examples people have brought up: ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. I finished it DEC Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here]. ##This one looks to me like a clear example of something preceding the head -- ware 'work' certainly seems to be the head, as John said, unless the gloss is somehow misleading. (By the way, John -- I don't see why this would be "strictly speaking a noun clause" ... what do you mean?) So this example, assuming head = ware, seems to argue for a head-internal structure. >..word order is pretty fixed in Hocank RCs. The order is always Noun Head - Predicate - Determiner and this >order exactly replicates the order in the ordinary noun phrase in Hocank except that the determiner is not >obligatory. Permutations in this order are not accepted by Hocank consultants. In (1)a there is an example of a >transitive clause including a RC modifying the subject noun huNuNc^ 'bear'. In (1)b-c, it is shown that the >predicate of the RC cannot be moved before the head noun, and it seems to be the case that the adverbial particle >gojá 'over there' needs to appear betwen head noun and predicate. What is possible is the permutation of the >whole RC behind the predicate of the main clause, cf. (1)d. >(1)a huNuNc^-zí- ra gojá hac^a-rá hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN > bear- brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF me-chased-started-DECL > The brown bear I saw over there started to chase me. >(1)b *gojá hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra ... >(1)c *hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra gojá >(1)d hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN huNuNc^-zí- ra gojá hac^a-rá > me-chased-started-DECL bear-brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF > He started to chase me, the bear I saw over there. ##Now, this set, on the other hand, seems to lean toward a head-initial structure (i.e. EITHER external head or else "topicalization" (or something) of the head within the clause) The interesting example is (1b). I assume that Goja' hac^a-ra' huNuNc^zi-ra hac^a-X is a perfectly fine sentence? (With "X" being some main-clause verb ending instead of -ra'; meaning "I saw the brown bear over there.") If not, then the example is irrelevant -- there's some independant reason why the adverbial can't precede huNuNc^-zi-ra, having nothing to do with its status as head of a relative clause. > The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head > noun with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, > the head noun almost always carries a definite article. Which makes it useful to know for sure if we know that -ra marks definitenes. Suppose it marked something like referentiality/specificity? ##Yes, this is absolutely crucial. Anyone have any ideas how to find out??? > ... but I have the impression, that the head noun is still definite, > even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct that internal heads > of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of RC are clearly > external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not clear to me > either. I think maybe what Catherine is getting at here is not that the head is indefinite as such, but that the definiteness of the head is marked on the clause as a whole, providing an argument for internal status of the head. ##Yes. In languages with internal-headed relative clauses, the head is marked with an indefinite determiner (or none) EVEN IF IT IS SEMANTICALLY DEFINITE. There's usually a clause-external determiner which marks the semantic definiteness or indefiniteness of the entire construction (and thereby, of the head). John Boyle's recent paper (from the Spearfish meeting) shows this very nicely in Hidatsa, and it's well known in Lakhota and a bunch of other languages, from various families ... Some syntactic analyses of internal-headed RCs involve raising the head to the position of the external determiner or coindexing it with that determiner to account for its semantics. This is actually very similar to what Johannes shows in the next example: >Now, if they [positional demonstratives including je'ga 'standing' in 2 --CR] are used as subordinating forms as >suffixes to the embedded verb, they always classify the head noun, no matter which semantic/ syntactic role this >constituent may have in the RC, cf. the example in (2) >(2) huNuNc^- rá gojá hac^a-jéga > bear- DEF over there I.seeing.it-DEM('distal'; standing) > hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN > me-chase- start-DECL > The bear I am seeing over there (standing) starts to chase me. >In exampl (2) the bear is the direct object of the verb 'to see' in the RC and the attr. demonstrative classifies the >bear as a standing one. If the bear were head noun and subject of the RC this demonstrative had the same effect. >This demonstrates the close syntactic bond of the elements within the RC and the head noun, and it is a further >similiarity to the ordinary NP where these attributive demonstratives have the same function (to classify the referent >of the NP with regard to position and to mark the NP as definite) ##Exactly! But I wouldn't just say it demonstrates a "bond" between "the elements within the RC and the head noun", I'd say it (may?) show that the head noun IS ONE OF "the elements within the RC". This example in fact provides the strongest argument so far that the head is actually internal. An attribute of the head is marked on the clause as a whole: [[bear. -ra-there-I.see.it]standing] Which makes me wonder all the more about the status of the -ra element. And, if I am correctly anticipating the next step, we can argue that the determiner itself is not the head if we can show that it is optional. ##Huh? Sorry, John. You've lost me here. My fault, probabably! Actually, I might well claim that the determiner (the clause-final one) IS the head in the sense that the whole construction is a DP. But that's not the one Johannes is saying is optional, I think (???) And this is a different "head" than the nominal head of a relative ... >As can be seen from the examples, the head noun almost always carries a definite article. I browsed through my >notes to find examples with no definite article on the head noun and I could find examples for this only if the >embedded predicate has a attributive demonstartive of the type shown in (2). In this case, the def article on the >head noun seems to be optional ##What about cases where the whole construction is indefinite? (A bear that I saw...) ##Enough for one message! Thanks for your reply, Johannes, and I hope you'll write again when you are back home. Great examples. Once again, I do realize that this issue wasn't relevant to your paper -- I was just excited to see someone mentioning RCs at all! Catherine From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 18 17:19:09 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:19:09 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: Dear Wally and other Siouanists: I suspect that the name was used because what Europeans the Caddos had met seemed to have supernatural powers (for instance a knowledge of firearms, eyeglasses, etc). This was a belief originally shared by a number of other groups, for instance some Polynesian groups - a belief soon shattered, of course. Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Wallace Chafe To: Anthony Grant ; Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:37 AM Subject: Re: wild cats etc > For whatever it's worth, the Caddo word for the little people is > yahyashattsi?. That's in the popular orthography, where h is murmured (an > interesting feature of Caddo phonetics), sh is the shibilant, ts is > properly an affricate, and ? a glottal stop. The suffix -tsi? is indeed a > diminutive, but I have no idea what yahyashat- might have come from. It's > interesting to hear that somebody once used it for white people. Maybe it > was used derisively? Those Spaniards may have been short, compared to the > Caddos. > > Wally > > --On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:10 PM +0100 Anthony Grant > wrote: > > > As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that > > 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her > > 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself > > a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and > > suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the > > first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one > > long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any > > records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan > > languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I > > know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised > > French forms for 'the English', etc. > > Anthony Grant > > > From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Jul 18 19:20:05 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:20:05 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D35A618.3BBE0D30@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: 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 Thu Jul 18 19:27:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:27:46 -0600 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <002c01c22e7f$3d68d540$6a6d073e@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of > these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. It's not quite that simple, since the two cases of 'spider' = 'Trickster' that I know of off the top of my head are Cheyenne and Dakotan, and the Cheyenne case includes 'whiteman', while the Dakotan case doesn't. On the other hand, as far as I can recall Mandan also has 'Trickster' = 'whiteman', but not 'Trickster' = 'spider'. A further dimension, of course, is whether Trickster is called Whiteman in English by persons of the group in question. In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jul 18 20:01:20 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:01:20 -0700 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: Actually, the spider/trickster/white man terms in the Plains Algonquian languages can all be shown to have meant 'trickster' originally in Proto-Algonquian, not 'spider'. This is evident from comparing the cognates of the 'trickster' word in the Great Lakes languages, where that 'spider/trickster/white man' thing doesn't happen. In those languages the 'trickster' word just means 'trickster' (the word has not discernible etymology), and the 'spider' words all look rather similar to each other byt very different from 'trickster'. So Plains Algonquian 'spider' comes from 'trickster', not vice versa. Dave Costa >> Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of these >> from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. From boris at terracom.net Thu Jul 18 20:23:05 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:23:05 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Shannon, I'm assuming these are at least partially transparent compounds, are they totally transparent to a native-speaker? Thanks Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon West" To: Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:20 PM Subject: RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > 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 Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 18 21:19:44 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:19:44 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: RE: the Dakota form for 'white man', I have heard (possibly from you, John) that there have been folk-etymological attempts to link it up with a word meaning ' be evil'. I've also heard Wasichu used as a term for whites among Indians who are not Siouan but who have an interest in Pan-Indianism. Dakotanism (often billed as 'Lakota spirituality') has enjoyed something of a reception in England too among New Agers. My understanding is that many Lakotas would be displeased at this. Allan Taylor has a note on Trickster etc in his 'Comparative Caddoan', of which I forget the details. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: wild cats etc > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > > Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of > > these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. > > It's not quite that simple, since the two cases of 'spider' = 'Trickster' > that I know of off the top of my head are Cheyenne and Dakotan, and the > Cheyenne case includes 'whiteman', while the Dakotan case doesn't. On the > other hand, as far as I can recall Mandan also has 'Trickster' = > 'whiteman', but not 'Trickster' = 'spider'. A further dimension, of > course, is whether Trickster is called Whiteman in English by persons of > the group in question. > > In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, > suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals > fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people > object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, > and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic > ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not > sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota > person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism > doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. > (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 18 22:00:49 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:00:49 -0600 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <002601c22ea0$d8bb6500$733b073e@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > RE: the Dakota form for 'white man', I have heard (possibly from you, John) > that there have been folk-etymological attempts to link it up with a word > meaning ' be evil'. Not me I think. Or, if I knew of this, I'd forgotten. Possibly s^i'c^a 'bad'? But I think if you added ?uN 'do', you'd have to change c^ (< *k) to l. However, as soon as I start forming new words in Dakotan, my fundamental ignorance of the language shows. > I've also heard Wasichu used as a term for whites among > Indians who are not Siouan but who have an interest in Pan-Indianism. Evangelical Dakotanism. From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Jul 18 23:31:26 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:31:26 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <02e501c22e98$ed543260$565faad0@machine> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Knutson > Sent: July 18, 2002 1:23 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > > Shannon, > > I'm assuming these are at least partially transparent compounds, are they > totally transparent to a native-speaker? > > Thanks > Alan K Yep. Completely transparent. But damned if I can find what jukana means now. :) Shannon From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 20 21:19:58 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:19:58 -0600 Subject: Spiders, Trickster, and Whitemen (Re: wild cats etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > Actually, the spider/trickster/white man terms in the Plains Algonquian > languages can all be shown to have meant 'trickster' originally in > Proto-Algonquian, not 'spider'. ... I decided to try to summarize the tgerms for 'spider', 'Trickster', and 'whiteman' in Missisippi Valley. I haven't tried to include secondary considerations like what terms are used in English for 'Trickster', though this can be interesting. For example, I gather that the Mandan may generally call him Whiteman in English, while the Omaha, having come to calling monkeys Is^ti'nikhe in Omaha now call him Monkey in English. If there's more interest, perhaps folks can add additional languages from the rest of the family, or fill in some of the holes, correct misimpressions, etc. All of the 'whiteman' terms are under suspicion, often indicated in the sources, of referring specifically to the French, originally, except for those based on 'big knife', which presumably refer to 'American'. Note that 'whiteman', though traditional, is something of an odd gloss. Presumably it originates in European color-based terminologies - red men, black men, white men, yellow men, too, for that matter. But the Siouan terms generally have no reference to color, and usually specifically include both Euroamericans and Afroamericans. Probably Asian Americans, too, for what that's worth, though I'm not sure. Sometimes African Americans are specifically distinguished as 'black whitemen'. The general idea is apparently 'non-Native, not indigenous people' as opposed to 'people of the usual kind' or indigenous Americans, who would normally be identified in terms of ethnic group. There are, of course, weakly developed terminologies for non-indigenous ethnic groups, too, though this list usually stops at 'French' (the unmarked case of normal non-indigenous people), 'British, Canadian', 'Spanish, Mexican', and the johnny-come-lately 'Americans, Virginians'. There is sometimes a substitution of the 'American' term for the 'whiteman' or 'non-indigenous people' term, and there may be confusion in the 'Spanish, Mexican' and 'French' terms due to the transfer of French authority over the Louisinana (exercised from St. Louis) to the Spanish. Dakotan Sa uNkto'mi uNkto'mi was^i'c^uN Te ikto'(mi) ikto'(mi) was^i'c^u(N) Santee from Riggs and Williamson. Teton from Buechel and Ingham. I believe there are more variants of 'Trickster'. For 'whiteman', cf. sic^uN, s^ic^uN 'spirit or spirit-like thing in a man which guards him from birth against evil spirits' (Buechel). Dhegiha OP ukki'gdhiske is^ti'nikhe wa'xe (not wa'ghe) Ks c^c^ixobe is^ta'xe Os hce'xope iNs^ta'xiN Qu moi'kka ho'mittatta is^ta'xe, is^ta'xi Omaha-Ponca from Dorsey and Swetland & Stabler and LaFlesche. Kansa and Quapaw from Rankin. Osage from LaFlesche. The Omaha-Ponca 'spider' term s glossed 'it weaves itself', but I suppose it could be 'it weaves for itself'. Kansa 'spider' looks like 'holy house', the Osage one like 'holy buffalo'. The Quapaw one resembles Quapaw mani'kka 'earth' (other Dhegiha terms similar, with the -n- somewhat elidable). The Kansa, Osage, and Quapaw 'whiteman' terms are generally interpreted as 'yellow eyes', htough it's a fricative gradation of zi 'yellow' and sometimes the vowel is -e. Omaha-Ponca wa'xe is often explained as 'maker', but that would be wa'ghe < wa-gaghe. Unfortunately, transcriptions distinguishing x and gh are scarce, other than Dorsey's. IO wagri' xa'xaj^e isj^iN'khi ma'?uNkhe maNt^uNkhe, mat^?uNkhe ?'metal ...' mai?uN ?'knife doer' The IO form for 'spider' is based on wagri' 'bug', but I'm not sure of xa'xaj^e. The unreduplkicated form xa'j^e is 'hay'. There is also wagri' xaN'xaNj^in~e 'swarming with maggots'. Note that xaN'j^e ~ xaN'n~e (similar, but not etymologically identical) is 'big'. The terms for 'whiteman' are explained as 'iron worker, land worker', which might work for the second set, cf. maNd^e' 'iron' (t^ = theta, d^ = edh). UN is 'to do', but uNkhe is less clear. The male declarative is khe, but declaratives are not usually (ever?) part of lexicalized forms in Siouan languages. The last looks like a fast speech rendition of something beginning with maN(aN)'hiN 'knife'. Wi wikirihoo'kere wakj^aN'ka=ga waxobiN'niN 'spirit' waNaNksga' 'whiteman' (literally) maNiNxe'te 'big knife' ('American') ware'niNka 'work man' The 'spider' term looks like 'scalp lock bug'. I believe the final -ga of 'Trickster' is the demonstartive attached to names or first person kin terms, etc., essentially a mark of respect, I think, or at least formality. The first 'whiteman' term incorporates *xop-riN 'be holy', though this stem seems not to be found independently in Winnebago. The general root *xop- is found throughout Siouan, and xop-riN, with the same auxiliary verb, occurs in Mandan. The third version of 'whiteman' is probably the usual 'big knife' term for 'American', though contracted (maNaNhiN' 'knife' xete' 'big'). JEK From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Sat Jul 20 21:53:33 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:53:33 +0100 Subject: Spiders, Trickster, and Whitemen (Re: wild cats etc) Message-ID: Dear John: Fascinating stuff! As I recall, Pawnee and Arikara call white people 'person white': sahni$taaka in Arikara, tsahriksta(a)ka in Pawnee (apologies if there are errors in these forms). The Is^tahe form also occurs in a Wichita vocabulary from the 1850s to refer to some non-Indian ethnic groups. (I'll check up which ones; I think African-Americans and Mexicans had compound names involving this stem.) It's probably a loan from Osage. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: Spiders, Trickster, and Whitemen (Re: wild cats etc) > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > Actually, the spider/trickster/white man terms in the Plains Algonquian > > languages can all be shown to have meant 'trickster' originally in > > Proto-Algonquian, not 'spider'. ... > > I decided to try to summarize the tgerms for 'spider', 'Trickster', and > 'whiteman' in Missisippi Valley. I haven't tried to include secondary > considerations like what terms are used in English for 'Trickster', though > this can be interesting. For example, I gather that the Mandan may > generally call him Whiteman in English, while the Omaha, having come to > calling monkeys Is^ti'nikhe in Omaha now call him Monkey in English. > > If there's more interest, perhaps folks can add additional languages from > the rest of the family, or fill in some of the holes, correct > misimpressions, etc. > > All of the 'whiteman' terms are under suspicion, often indicated in the > sources, of referring specifically to the French, originally, except for > those based on 'big knife', which presumably refer to 'American'. Note > that 'whiteman', though traditional, is something of an odd gloss. > Presumably it originates in European color-based terminologies - red men, > black men, white men, yellow men, too, for that matter. But the Siouan > terms generally have no reference to color, and usually specifically > include both Euroamericans and Afroamericans. Probably Asian Americans, > too, for what that's worth, though I'm not sure. Sometimes African > Americans are specifically distinguished as 'black whitemen'. > > The general idea is apparently 'non-Native, not indigenous people' as > opposed to 'people of the usual kind' or indigenous Americans, who would > normally be identified in terms of ethnic group. > > There are, of course, weakly developed terminologies for non-indigenous > ethnic groups, too, though this list usually stops at 'French' (the > unmarked case of normal non-indigenous people), 'British, Canadian', > 'Spanish, Mexican', and the johnny-come-lately 'Americans, Virginians'. > There is sometimes a substitution of the 'American' term for the > 'whiteman' or 'non-indigenous people' term, and there may be confusion in > the 'Spanish, Mexican' and 'French' terms due to the transfer of French > authority over the Louisinana (exercised from St. Louis) to the Spanish. > > Dakotan > > Sa uNkto'mi uNkto'mi was^i'c^uN > Te ikto'(mi) ikto'(mi) was^i'c^u(N) > > Santee from Riggs and Williamson. Teton from Buechel and Ingham. I > believe there are more variants of 'Trickster'. For 'whiteman', cf. > sic^uN, s^ic^uN 'spirit or spirit-like thing in a man which guards him > from birth against evil spirits' (Buechel). > > Dhegiha > > OP ukki'gdhiske is^ti'nikhe wa'xe (not wa'ghe) > Ks c^c^ixobe is^ta'xe > Os hce'xope iNs^ta'xiN > Qu moi'kka ho'mittatta is^ta'xe, is^ta'xi > > Omaha-Ponca from Dorsey and Swetland & Stabler and LaFlesche. Kansa and > Quapaw from Rankin. Osage from LaFlesche. The Omaha-Ponca 'spider' term > s glossed 'it weaves itself', but I suppose it could be 'it weaves for > itself'. Kansa 'spider' looks like 'holy house', the Osage one like 'holy > buffalo'. The Quapaw one resembles Quapaw mani'kka 'earth' (other Dhegiha > terms similar, with the -n- somewhat elidable). The Kansa, Osage, and > Quapaw 'whiteman' terms are generally interpreted as 'yellow eyes', htough > it's a fricative gradation of zi 'yellow' and sometimes the vowel is -e. > Omaha-Ponca wa'xe is often explained as 'maker', but that would be wa'ghe > < wa-gaghe. Unfortunately, transcriptions distinguishing x and gh are > scarce, other than Dorsey's. > > IO wagri' xa'xaj^e isj^iN'khi ma'?uNkhe > maNt^uNkhe, mat^?uNkhe ?'metal ...' > mai?uN ?'knife doer' > > The IO form for 'spider' is based on wagri' 'bug', but I'm not sure of > xa'xaj^e. The unreduplkicated form xa'j^e is 'hay'. There is also wagri' > xaN'xaNj^in~e 'swarming with maggots'. Note that xaN'j^e ~ xaN'n~e > (similar, but not etymologically identical) is 'big'. The terms for > 'whiteman' are explained as 'iron worker, land worker', which might work > for the second set, cf. maNd^e' 'iron' (t^ = theta, d^ = edh). UN is 'to > do', but uNkhe is less clear. The male declarative is khe, but > declaratives are not usually (ever?) part of lexicalized forms in Siouan > languages. The last looks like a fast speech rendition of something > beginning with maN(aN)'hiN 'knife'. > > Wi wikirihoo'kere wakj^aN'ka=ga waxobiN'niN 'spirit' > waNaNksga' 'whiteman' (literally) > maNiNxe'te 'big knife' ('American') > ware'niNka 'work man' > > The 'spider' term looks like 'scalp lock bug'. I believe the final -ga of > 'Trickster' is the demonstartive attached to names or first person kin > terms, etc., essentially a mark of respect, I think, or at least > formality. The first 'whiteman' term incorporates *xop-riN 'be holy', > though this stem seems not to be found independently in Winnebago. The > general root *xop- is found throughout Siouan, and xop-riN, with the same > auxiliary verb, occurs in Mandan. The third version of 'whiteman' is > probably the usual 'big knife' term for 'American', though contracted > (maNaNhiN' 'knife' xete' 'big'). > > JEK > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 20 22:19:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:19:21 -0600 Subject: Helmsbrecht Queries: Frequentative -ke Message-ID: Let me get a few more of my queries out of the way now, though Johannes is away for a few weeks and won't see these until he gets back. Actually, it seems like he may not be the only one away for a few weeks ... I wish I was, too, because it's hot as blazes here. JH (2002. Nouns and Verbs in Hocank IJAL 68.1:9) mentions 'The verbal suffix -ke (see Lipkind 1945:39), which functions as a frequentative marker, also appears with nouns or, more accurately, derived words designating a nominal concept, ...' He gives as examples caan-niN'(k)-keres^-ge 'fawn' = 'deer-DIM-be spotted-FREQ' and kiriki'ris-ge 'downy woodpecker' = 'be striped-FREQ', to use his orthoraphy (rendered in ASCII) with dashes to clarify the morphological structure. It would be normaly for -ke to be voiced in this context, I believe. Lipkind's examples of the -ke frequentative, are (1) maNaNs^o'-ke-s^uNnuN-naN 'he often whittles' = '(he) whittles-FREQ-CUST-DEC', in which people will no doubt recognize in -s^uNnuN- (< *s^nuN) the cognate of that Dhegiha habitual -s^naN- (2) haNke' waru'c^-ka-niN-naN 'he seldom eats' = 'NEG (he) eats-FREQ-NEG-DEC', showing that the frequentative -ke is abluating (-kE) However, I'd suggest that the -ge in the two examples shown is not the frequentative, but a noun-forming suffix *-ka found elsewhere in Mississippi Valley Siouan and paricularly common in the often transparently derived names of animals. Other examples abound in Winnebago, of course, but it might be more to the point to show examples elsewhere, e.g., Mandan raN'he 'back' vs. OP naN'kka < naNh-ka; Winnebago ruuc^-ge' 'dove', OP dhi'tta < *rut-ka; Dakotan c^haNt(e'), OP naN'de vs. Mandan raN't-ka, Winnebago naNaNc^-ge' ~ naNaNc^ 'heart'. Sometimes the underlying root is clear, and the whole can be rendered, perhaps, 'characterized by X', which is not inconsistant with the frequentative reading, but the Winnebago form of the frequentative -kE, is from earlier -hkE (since it's voiceless), while the noun-forming suffix is *-ka, unaspirated. The 'characterized by' gloss is often applied to a somewhat similar suffix -ka in Dakotan, though that is perhaps more often added to stative verbs. Interesting, Rankin has shown that -kha endings in Dakotan are often from *h-ka, i.e., -ka endings added to historically h-final roots. This also explains -ga and -kka endings in Omaha-Ponca, i.e., they are from *-ka and *h-ka, or *ka added to V-final and h-final roots. It's not impossible that the Winnebago -ke frequentative is itself a result of reanalysis of *h-ke < *h-ka as an independent formation. By way of background, pretty nearly all *ka and *xa become ge and xe in Winnebago (and Chiwere), whereupon Winnebago loses the final e, along with other final -e, unless the e follows a cluster like *-hk or *s^k and so on. Thus, Winnebago ends up with -k vs. -C-ge vs. -ke (<-h-ka) for nouns with this formant. Some nouns just end in -k, of course. Anyway, I'm not sure if we want to conclude that -ge final nouns in Winnebago reflect the particularly Winnebago -ke frequentative, though it's not an unreasonable hypothesis in Winnebago (if one omits the -k final nouns). Given Johannes' goal in this apper of looking for markers of nouns, it's possible we might want to reexamine -ge in this context. However, we have to bear in mind that across Siouan *-ka is often added to stative verbs, too. The *-htaN-ka 'be big' set is a well known case, and often surfaces without -ka. In short, the problem of identifying nouns is an old one. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 21 04:46:47 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:46:47 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Queries: Postpositions Message-ID: I've got another query. In Johannes' article (2002. Nouns and Verbs in Hochank. IJAL 68.1:24), he says 'Relevant for the identification of nouns in Hocank is the fact that the local position of an object relative to another object is not expressed by an adpositional phrase (three are no adpositions in Hocank) but by a constgruction which resembles much more a genetive phrase which is formally simply a juxtaposition of two words in Hocank.' An example would be: ks^e= i'z^aN waaru'c^ hihag=e'j^a naN'k= s^aNnaN apple INDEF table top there be.sitting DECL I'm in two minds on this because, actually, I've often felt that postpositions in Omaha-Ponca, anyway, had various analogies to verbs, and because I know that they also fall into at least two different morphological and syntactic types. However, there are certain things in Sioua languages, including Winnebago that at least look like postpositions, and I'd be reluctant to dispose of them in passing like this. I'm wondering if Johannes has some additional thinking on ths subject that he'd like to go into, considerations that might have been out of place in this article. If I had to identify postpositions in Winnebago, I'd point first to forms like e(e)'=ja. This is glossed above as 'there', but etymologically it is e 'it, that, the aforesaid' plus an enclitic =j^a. The =j^a can't occur independently, but it's essentially a locative postposition, like the =gi in e(e)'=gi 'here'. The glosses here are somewhat notional. Lipkind (1945:52) speaks of egi as an adverb, and shows that it compounds with various nouns: c^iinaN'g=r(a)=egi 'in town' haNaNh(e)=egi (or maybe haNhe=gi) 'tonight' (Miner also gives haNaNhe'=r(a)=egi 'at night') maNaN=n(a)=e'gi 'to the earth' < maN' 'earth' waN'g=r(a)=egi 'above' < waN'k 'top' For examples with other demonstratives (than e), see Lipkind (1945:53): ee'gi 'here' mee'gi 'here near speaker' dee'gi 'here near speaker' higi' 'here in its place' gagi' 'there' z^eegi' 'there near you' ee'j^a 'there' z^ee'j^a 'there near you' hij^a 'there in its place' gai'j^a 'there near him' (obviously ga + (h)ij^a in this case) Perhaps the glosses suggestg that speakers ae a bit hazy on the relationships of the forms, and that they are perhaps completely lexicalized, but, to me, it looks like essentially a case of demonstratives (h)i, ee, dee, z^ee, ga + =j^a and =gi. The =j^a, probably, is cognate with the =(k)ta in Dakotan and the =tta (< *=kta) in Omaha-Ponca. The =gi seems to be a Winnebago and Chiwere equivalent of the =di in OP (which may be cognate with the =l ~ =tu in Teton Dakotan). I notice that we are apparently lacking the fossil forms with nouns that occur in Dakotan (thiyata) or Omaha-Ponca (ttiatta). For cases with verbs, see: hac^iij^a 'where' < hac^i 'to dwell' (perhaps =ij^a ?) Of course, this verb is the one used in lieu of 'house' in Winnebago, and the root in all three cases is *hti 'to dwell; a dwelling'. I've mentioned that postpositions have a quasi-verbal character in OP. It's not that they can be inflected, but they can stand, some of them, as predicates in the third person. As far as morphological and syntactic peculiarities I had in mind the tendency of some of them to attach directly to nouns, though mostly in OP they seem to require an article (originally a verb) or a demonstrative to support them. So, you get tti=the=di 'in the house'. But that's a lot like the =ra in many of the Winnebago examples, except that Winnebago also retains the ee= demonstrative, as i c^iinaN'g-r-egi. In OP there is also a strong tendency in older texts for =di added to a noun to cause ablaut or -a- insertion, e.g., ppahe 'hill' + di => ppaha=di, or the example of ttiattha (or ttiadi) with tti 'house'. A further syntactic irregularity, and here we get into something more like the Winnebago situation, is that apart from this (older?) enclitic set of postpositions, there are (newer?) "heavy" postpositions, often begining with demonstratives, usually longer, that are typically independent, though sometimes they compound with a noun. Examples would be maNthe' 'in, under', e'gaghe 'around', or idaNbe ~ edaNbe 'center of'. Most of these can take one of the lighter postpostions themselves, e.g., maN'tha=tta 'inside of', idaNba=tta 'through the center of'. It's this last category that acts much like and is structured much like such Winnebago forms as hihag=e'j^a in the first example, from hiha'k 'top', given the hi-, perhaps originally 'its top'. I'd wonder what the problem would be with treating 'on top (of)' as a postposition in this case, though clearly there is also a whole part relationship of the sort Johannes mentions between table and top: waaru'c^ hihak= e'j^a table (its) top there table (its) top DEM=LOC Actually, given that nouns with final -e lose it, this might be, historically hihake=j^a, and reanalysis of such forms as having e(e)j^a in order to explain hihake=j^a without rsorting to allomorphy for hihak(e) might explain the strong tendency of Winnebago workers (and perhaps speakers) to handle DEM-POST combinations as monomorphemic - though I have also seen elsewhere a tendency to explain them as ee + hi-POST combinations, the latter treated as monomorphemic. Examples gaij^a suggest this is sometimes the case - today! I know that Regina Pustet has also been wrestling with the question of subtypes of postpositions, though in Dakotan, and based on considerable fieldwork and text searching. From rlundy at huntel.net Sun Jul 21 22:25:58 2002 From: rlundy at huntel.net (rlundy at huntel.net) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:25:58 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: Members; I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. Thank you. Richard C. Lundy ---- Original Message ---- From: To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, Subject: RE: Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:19:58 -0600 (MDT) > New WebMail from HunTel.net From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 22 06:57:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:57:21 -0600 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: <138580-220027021222558766@huntel.net> Message-ID: > Members; > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither would was^ic^u derived from that. As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French for asparagus. All French from memory.) I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis is offered by Buechel ... As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha languages have borrowed each others' terms. So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the fat' explanation is first attested. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jul 22 11:18:10 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:18:10 +0100 Subject: Wolverines (Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks John The Stoney one looks like a cognate. It was as you say a list of animals in Bushotter. It is in text 114, where he groups them as thalo yul uNpi 'carnivors'. In another text 105 he talks of 'starnge animals' wamakhas^saN...os^tekapi, but doen't say what they are. Possibly the sort that you get in Australia. Bruce n 17 Jul 2002, at 23:16, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word mnaja > > (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. ... I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota > > Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. ... > > I looked in the Siouan Archives files, and in various dictionaries and, > other than the Bushotter and Riggs references found only a Stoney form > mnazan. I suppose the -n is the diminutive. I think the fricative shoift > is normal. I also checked under 'lion', 'cat', and possible phonological > matches without luck. I'd expect something like *naNz^e in Dhegiha or > Ioway-Otoe, and like *naNaNs^ in Winnebago, though I also looked in > Omaha-Ponca under *bdhaNz^e and in Winnebago under *pa(N)naNs^, just in > case. > > This doesn't mean there isn't some attestation out there. > > I did notice "shanmonikasi" as a variant for 'wolf, prairie wolf, coyote' > in IO, attributed to Maximilian. > > I also think I saw the Bushotter reference in question. Interestingly, it > was a list of animals, and between 'badger' and 'lion' were ma'yas^lec^a, > s^uNkmanitu, and s^uNkmanitu thaNka. In the interlinear these were > glossed 'coyotes, wolves, and large wolves', and in the free they were > glossed 'coyotes, foxes'. > > I suppose we can take 'lion' as a way of saying (in English) 'big cat', > consistent with 'cat' as a generic preditor term. > > JEK > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jul 22 12:56:00 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:56:00 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <034401c22cea$83192db0$ae5faad0@machine> Message-ID: Alan I knew it wouldn't be a 'nice' animal. Thanks for the information Bruce 16 Jul 2002, at 12:02, Alan Knutson wrote: Just imagine a 50-100kg animal, as fast as a cat but with the > temper of a cranky badger. > > Alan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:30 AM > Subject: RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > > > Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is > > the Avonlea culture? > > Bruce > > On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:24, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > > > > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. > > > > > > Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, > or > > > some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish > > > encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The > > > Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic > > > assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the > > > Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to > > > Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of > > > the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. > > > The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. > > > > > > The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early > > > Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota > > > sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date > properly. > > > There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and > Siouan, > > > the 'metal' term. > > > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jul 22 13:01:46 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:01:46 +0100 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: <138580-220027021222558766@huntel.net> Message-ID: Incidentally the Arabs (or Arabians at least) call us humur, which means 'red people'. The singular is hamar. Bruce On 21 Jul 2002, at 17:25, rlundy at huntel.net wrote: > Members; > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > Thank you. > > Richard C. Lundy > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, > Subject: RE: > Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:19:58 -0600 (MDT) > > > > > New WebMail from HunTel.net > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 22 19:06:56 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:06:56 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? Thank you, Michael McCafferty On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > > Members; > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I > know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither > would was^ic^u derived from that. > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization > of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French > for asparagus. All French from memory.) > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' > 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in > Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis > is offered by Buechel ... > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a > consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization > issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of > the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha > languages have borrowed each others' terms. > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept > the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various > explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on > annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the > annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more > historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the > fat' explanation is first attested. > > JEK > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 22 20:11:19 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:11:19 -0600 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application of the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, Omaha-Ponca 'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) s^agla's^a which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an Algonquian source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these generally resemble "espan~ol." JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 00:42:02 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:42:02 -0600 Subject: whitemen etc (fwd) Message-ID: Since most of the Caddoanists are on this list and there's no Caddoan list ... and since the patterns of adaptation and change of scope may cast light on Siouan usages. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:30:23 +0100 From: Anthony Grant To: john.koontz at colorado.edu Subject: whitemen etc Dear John: Post this to tjhe list if you think it's apposite. I checked my transcription of Randolph Barnes Marcy's Wichita vocab in 'Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana', which I made at the Bancrofft Library, UC Berkeley, in the mid-1990s. Whiteman is: E-ka'-rish ('English', also the form for whiteman in Kitsai and Caddo), Mexican is Es-ta'-he and the term for African-American is: Es-ta'he-es co'-rash, the second word co'rash being an ill-transcribed form o Wichita 'black'. Es-ta'he is possibly the same as Quapaw i$taxi and similar forms which resemble the word for 'eye'. I believe there's a similar form in Osage, and that this may be the source for the Wichita word, that they learned of whites from the Osages and that for them the archetypal white was a Mexican, but that with the advent of Angloamericans the use of the term es-ta'-he.(Marcy's spelling) later became more narrowly focussed on Mexicans rather than on all whites in general. The form for Black people as meaning what was by then (early 1850s) interpretable as 'black Mexicans' (because of the semantic narrowing of Es-ta'he) suggests this. Anthony Grant From rlundy at huntel.net Tue Jul 23 01:57:14 2002 From: rlundy at huntel.net (rlundy at huntel.net) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:57:14 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: Members; I always heard and use the term "Spa'ola" to refer to any people (as well as their foods, music, etc.) of "Hispanic" or "Latino" affiliations. Richard C. Lundy ---- Original Message ---- From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:11:19 -0600 (MDT) >On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing >was >> applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To >Britons? > >I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application >of >the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some >other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, >Omaha-Ponca >'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. > >The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) >s^agla's^a >which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an >Algonquian >source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a >ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. > >I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these >generally resemble "espan~ol." > >JEK > > New WebMail from HunTel.net From ishna00 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 23 08:23:09 2002 From: ishna00 at hotmail.com (Thode Charles) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:23:09 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: Most of the people I know from Pine Ridge have shortened "Spa'ola" to simply "Spo-la" now. C. H. Thode >From: rlundy at huntel.net >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:57:14 -0500 > > >Members; >I always heard and use the term "Spa'ola" to refer to any people (as >well as their foods, music, etc.) of "Hispanic" or "Latino" >affiliations. >Richard C. Lundy > >---- Original Message ---- >From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, >Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:11:19 -0600 (MDT) > > >On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > >> May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing > >was > >> applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To > >Britons? > > > >I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application > >of > >the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some > >other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, > >Omaha-Ponca > >'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. > > > >The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) > >s^agla's^a > >which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an > >Algonquian > >source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a > >ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. > > > >I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these > >generally resemble "espan~ol." > > > >JEK > > > > > >New WebMail from HunTel.net _________________________________________________________________ MSN 포토에서 여러분의 사진을 간편하게 관리하세요. 다른 사람들과 공유는 물론 인화도 할 수 있습니다. http://photos.msn.co.kr From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jul 23 14:52:16 2002 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Sweltand) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:52:16 -0700 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: aloha all grandma elizabeth saunsoci stabler and most folks in her age group refer to spanish/mexicans as variously "hishpaiuni...hispaiuni"... perhaps from the term "Hispanic"? best uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Anthropology/Native American Studies University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? > > I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application of > the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some > other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, Omaha-Ponca > 'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. > > The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) s^agla's^a > which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an Algonquian > source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a > ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. > > I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these > generally resemble "espan~ol." > > JEK From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jul 23 14:58:59 2002 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Sweltand) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:58:59 -0700 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Anthropology/Native American Studies University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 23 14:08:29 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:08:29 -0700 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: Not surprisingly, Algonquian has the same set of 'Espagnol'/'Español' terms for 'Mexican'/'Spaniard': Miami /iihpaawala/~/iihpaayoolwa/ Oklahoma Ottawa /eshpayoo/ Menominee /E:spayo:w/ Unami /spa'nayu/ Gros Ventre /?isibe'yoouh/ Shawnee /spaani/ looks like it might actually be from English 'Spaniard'; not too surprising, since Shawnee lacks most of the French loans that the other Central languages have. Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name for the country. Dave Costa From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 23 18:37:32 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:37:32 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > Not surprisingly, Algonquian has the same set of 'Espagnol'/'Espa�ol' terms > for 'Mexican'/'Spaniard': > Shawnee /spaani/ looks like it might actually be from English 'Spaniard'; > not too surprising, since Shawnee lacks most of the French loans that the > other Central languages have. Problem is, the Shawnee were trading on the Atlantic Coast of Florida or South Carolina very early, I'll have to check, but prior to their contact with English traders further north. > > Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the > town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was > /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name > for the country. > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, post diaspora. Michael McCafferty From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 19:10:44 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:10:44 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <002601c23259$79a79860$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mark Awakuni-Sweltand wrote: > I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln > Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for > whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity > for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to > "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. I believe wa + gaghe would normally contract to wa(a)'ghe, like dative gi + gaghe contracts to giaghe. This conracting behavior seems to come from the ga-instrumental stems, but it is regular with gaghe and gaNze, too. The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. On the other hand, speakers all come up with the 'makes things' or 'maker' explanation, and something like this may apply to one one of the Winnebago forms ('worker') and maybe the IO form, too. Maybe Dorsey misheard the fricative in the word and just wrote it consistently wrong. Something that gives me pause here is the way the Ponca nuxe clan gets reanalyzed as 'ice' (naNghe?) though comparative evidence suggests the name here is an old term for 'reddish-yellow bison' attested as a clan name in other Dhegiha groups. In other words, people tend to fix things so that they make sense, even if the sense is an innovation. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 19:24:25 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:24:25 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter > (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat > confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., > with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. It seems to me that there are a couple of near homophones for gaghe, which actually are gaxe - something like 'branch (of a stream)' and/or 'comb', maybe? Even if I have the glosses and stem forms correct, these don't seem to be a lot of help ... 'maker' seems to me to make more sense than 'comber' or 'brancher'. I've wondered if the form was borrowed, but I've never encountered any plausible sources. The closest I could come up with was actually monsieur, but is'a bit of a step from ?mas^e to waxe or waghe. I think one of the Missouri River area Siouan languages does have ?mas^i or ?was^i something like that. I'll try to look it up. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 23 20:00:42 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:00:42 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms and Trickster terms. Message-ID: > It seems to me that there are a couple of near homophones for gaghe, which > actually are gaxe - something like 'branch (of a stream)' That's /gaxa'/ 'creek, branch'. The accent and final V are different. I don't know about length. > and/or 'comb', For the Kaws, that's /gaphe'/, I think. > maybe? Even if I have the glosses and stem forms correct, these don't > seem to be a lot of help ... 'maker' seems to me to make more sense than > 'comber' or 'brancher'. I think you hit it on the head when you pointed out that it has /x/ instead of /gh/. So right now, all we have is folk etymologies and linguists' folk etymologies. :-) BTW, in the discussion of the trickster and spider names, the Osage and Kaw term, /cci/e xop/be/ probably doesn't have anything to do with /xop/be/ 'sacred, holy'. It is much more likely that it relates to the verb /ixop/be/ 'to tell lies, deceive'. The /cc(e)/ part remains a mystery to me, as I don't buy into 'lying buffalo cow'. Bob From tleonard at prodigy.net Tue Jul 23 20:30:13 2002 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:30:13 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: Thought I'd chime in on this one....... I've heard from more than one Ponca source over the years that the term for "white man" (wa'xe) was derived from wana'xe (spirit or ghost). The folk etymology typically given was "Those old folks called them that because they were pale and looked like ghosts....they were afraid of those people when they first saw them" (that's a quote from a tape of the late Bessie LeClaire). There does seem to be some correlation. I've noted several names in Ponca and Omaha where "wa'xe" was interpreted as "ghost" (e.g. Ma'chu Wa'xe - "ghost bear"....very definitely NOT interpreted as "bear maker"). I've seen similar abbreviations in the everyday use of "wa'xe sa'be" (black man). Often it's shortened to "we'a sabe" (very commonly used) or sometimes wa'sabe or waa'sabe. Wa'sabe ("black bear") will sometimes get a chuckle from a listener. But when I've questioned it, the response is very often: "yeah.....but I knew what he meant". I've asked how come you don't use "wa'xe sabe" and, nearly always, the response has been "that's the way grandpa used to talk". Also (from an earlier post) the Ponca word shpa-u-ni is typically translated a "Mexican". Regards, Tom Leonard > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mark Awakuni-Sweltand wrote: > > I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln > > Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for > > whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity > > for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to > > "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. > > I believe wa + gaghe would normally contract to wa(a)'ghe, like dative gi > + gaghe contracts to giaghe. This conracting behavior seems to come from > the ga-instrumental stems, but it is regular with gaghe and gaNze, too. > > The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter > (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat > confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., > with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. > > On the other hand, speakers all come up with the 'makes things' or 'maker' > explanation, and something like this may apply to one one of the Winnebago > forms ('worker') and maybe the IO form, too. Maybe Dorsey misheard the > fricative in the word and just wrote it consistently wrong. > > Something that gives me pause here is the way the Ponca nuxe clan gets > reanalyzed as 'ice' (naNghe?) though comparative evidence suggests the > name here is an old term for 'reddish-yellow bison' attested as a clan > name in other Dhegiha groups. In other words, people tend to fix things > so that they make sense, even if the sense is an innovation. > > JEK > From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 23 21:26:24 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:26:24 +0100 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: Regarding Tom Leonard's posting: white foks were regarded as being ghost-like by members of quite a few cultures, including several who learned to their cost that these pale people weren't their ancestors who had returned. This is true of some Polynesian groups (the usual term for white people in Polynesian languages means, or is interpreted as, 'people who've come over from the skies'). I can well believe that early Dhegiha-speakers called white kaxe because they were impressed at the kinds of wonderful things they could make, and that later on, people who hadn't seen some of the technological tricks with which whites often purposely set out to impress others, though that 'ghost' was what had been meant, because 'maker' ('craftsman'??) didn't make immediate sense to them. It all ties in with the use of the same terms in some languages for trickster and culture hero and also whiteman (this is the case, I believe, in Arapaho). As to 'black bear', the Osage or Ponca form (I'm not sure which) has been borrowed into Comanche as a normal term for black bear. Armagost and Wistrand-Robinson's Comanche dictionary gives the form as wasa'pe with an underlined e. I don't know US ecology too well: would black bears have lived away from the original Comanche homeland, I wonder, so as to necessitate the borrowing of the term? Do they have blakc bears in Utah or wherever the Comanches set out from in the 18th century? This is a fascinating list! I would have commented on the Helmbrecht paper except that IJAL's arrival in Britain is so often delayed that I haven't seen it yet! Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Leonard To: Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Ethnic Terms > Thought I'd chime in on this one....... > > I've heard from more than one Ponca source over the years that the term for > "white man" (wa'xe) was derived from wana'xe (spirit or ghost). The folk > etymology typically given was "Those old folks called them that because they > were pale and looked like ghosts....they were afraid of those people when > they first saw them" (that's a quote from a tape of the late Bessie > LeClaire). > > There does seem to be some correlation. I've noted several names in Ponca > and Omaha where "wa'xe" was interpreted as "ghost" (e.g. Ma'chu Wa'xe - > "ghost bear"....very definitely NOT interpreted as "bear maker"). > > I've seen similar abbreviations in the everyday use of "wa'xe sa'be" (black > man). Often it's shortened to "we'a sabe" (very commonly used) or sometimes > wa'sabe or waa'sabe. Wa'sabe ("black bear") will sometimes get a chuckle > from a listener. But when I've questioned it, the response is very often: > "yeah.....but I knew what he meant". I've asked how come you don't use > "wa'xe sabe" and, nearly always, the response has been "that's the way > grandpa used to talk". > > Also (from an earlier post) the Ponca word shpa-u-ni is typically translated > a "Mexican". > > Regards, > Tom Leonard > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mark Awakuni-Sweltand wrote: > > > I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln > > > Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for > > > whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity > > > for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to > > > "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. > > > > I believe wa + gaghe would normally contract to wa(a)'ghe, like dative gi > > + gaghe contracts to giaghe. This conracting behavior seems to come from > > the ga-instrumental stems, but it is regular with gaghe and gaNze, too. > > > > The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter > > (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat > > confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., > > with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. > > > > On the other hand, speakers all come up with the 'makes things' or 'maker' > > explanation, and something like this may apply to one one of the Winnebago > > forms ('worker') and maybe the IO form, too. Maybe Dorsey misheard the > > fricative in the word and just wrote it consistently wrong. > > > > Something that gives me pause here is the way the Ponca nuxe clan gets > > reanalyzed as 'ice' (naNghe?) though comparative evidence suggests the > > name here is an old term for 'reddish-yellow bison' attested as a clan > > name in other Dhegiha groups. In other words, people tend to fix things > > so that they make sense, even if the sense is an innovation. > > > > JEK > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 21:49:40 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:49:40 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <001c01c2328f$fae4b580$eedd7ad5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > ... As to 'black bear', the Osage or Ponca form (I'm not sure which) > has been borrowed into Comanche as a normal term for black bear. > Armagost and Wistrand-Robinson's Comanche dictionary gives the form as > wasa'pe with an underlined e. I don't know US ecology too well: would > black bears have lived away from the original Comanche homeland, I > wonder, so as to necessitate the borrowing of the term? Do they have > blakc bears in Utah or wherever the Comanches set out from in the 18th > century? My recollection is that black bears are (a) as often as not some shade other than black, e.g., brown, and (b) pretty much everywhere in North America. Grizzlies were first encountered on the Plains, and apparently didn't extend west of the Mississippi. The easiest distinguishing feature, apart from average size, is the nose. The black bear is roman nosed, like the polar bear, while the grizzly has a dished in, or high-browed face. The folk lore on distinguishing the two is to annoy the bear and then climb a tree. If the bear follows you up the tree it's a black bear. If it tried to knock the tree down it's a grizzly. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Jul 24 04:39:03 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:39:03 -0700 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: >> Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the >> town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was >> /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name >> for the country. > > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, > post diaspora. Oh, I know. I'm assuming Mexico, Indiana got its name around the same time as for the same reasons as the nearby Peru, Indiana (location of the office of the Miami Nation of Indiana), Chili, Indiana, and Jalapa, Indiana. David From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 24 12:08:37 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:08:37 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quite likely. Yes. On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > >> Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the > >> town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was > >> /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name > >> for the country. > > > > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, > > post diaspora. > > Oh, I know. I'm assuming Mexico, Indiana got its name around the same time > as for the same reasons as the nearby Peru, Indiana (location of the office > of the Miami Nation of Indiana), Chili, Indiana, and Jalapa, Indiana. > > David > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 24 15:21:05 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:21:05 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <001901c23287$c1238720$a4ad3841@Busprod.Com> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Tom Leonard wrote: > I've heard from more than one Ponca source over the years that the term for > "white man" (wa'xe) was derived from wana'xe (spirit or ghost). The folk > etymology typically given was ... This is interesting, because (a) 'ghost' or 'spirit' based names are actually fairly common, as I think Tony pointed out, and (b) elisions of r- and y-like things between vowels are fairly common in fast speech in Siouan languages, e.g., e'ge for e'gidhe in Omaha. Also (c) the observation on names certainly seems confirmatory: > There does seem to be some correlation. I've noted several names in Ponca > and Omaha where "wa'xe" was interpreted as "ghost" (e.g. Ma'chu Wa'xe - > "ghost bear"....very definitely NOT interpreted as "bear maker"). On the other hand, stem initial n's usually seem a bit more resistant to this sort of elision - I can't think of any other examples, anyway - and I think the fricative is still different, i.e., I think it may be wana(N)'ghe in an orthography that distinguishes the two. I'll check. > I've seen similar abbreviations in the everyday use of "wa'xe sa'be" (black > man). Often it's shortened to "we'a sabe" (very commonly used) or sometimes > wa'sabe or waa'sabe. Wa'sabe ("black bear") will sometimes get a chuckle > from a listener. ... Loss of obstruents before an unaccented final -e is also pretty common, though I think mainly in Dhegiha, wasae or wasa for wasabe, for example. I think of this as occurring more in Osage and Kansa, though. I've never been clear on why and when this occurs. JEK From jmcbride at kayserv.net Wed Jul 24 15:39:05 2002 From: jmcbride at kayserv.net (Justin McBride) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:39:05 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: > Regarding Tom Leonard's posting: white foks were regarded as being > ghost-like by members of quite a few cultures, including several who learned > to their cost that these pale people weren't their ancestors who had > returned. This is true of some Polynesian groups (the usual term for white > people in Polynesian languages means, or is interpreted as, 'people who've > come over from the skies'). Dumb question... Are ghosts in Siouan culture thought of as pale or white? I assume that the color of a ghost--at least in western culture--is supposed to be indicative of the loss of color in the features of a corpse. Obviously the wanaNghe isn't the white-sheeted, chain-rattling, image so stylistically indigenous to Europe. But is it even white? JM From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 15:48:10 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:48:10 +0100 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <003e01c23328$3e665f00$3777f0c7@Language> Message-ID: I can only tell you that in Lakota stories ghost women are invisible from the legs down or possibly have no legs. Hence when they walk their skirts do not rustle. So be careful if you meet any of these silent walking women. Bruce On 24 Jul 2002, at 10:39, Justin McBride wrote: > > > > > Regarding Tom Leonard's posting: white foks were regarded as being > > ghost-like by members of quite a few cultures, including several who > learned > > to their cost that these pale people weren't their ancestors who had > > returned. This is true of some Polynesian groups (the usual term for > white > > people in Polynesian languages means, or is interpreted as, 'people > who've > > come over from the skies'). > > Dumb question... > > Are ghosts in Siouan culture thought of as pale or white? I assume that the > color of a ghost--at least in western culture--is supposed to be indicative > of the loss of color in the features of a corpse. Obviously the wanaNghe > isn't the white-sheeted, chain-rattling, image so stylistically indigenous > to Europe. But is it even white? > > JM > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 16:24:40 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:24:40 +0100 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. Maybe mi'c^[h]aksic^a is also the real origin of mayas^lec^a by a sporadic sound change. Bruce Bruce On 16 Jul 2002, at 23:59, Koontz John E wrote: > OK, I can explain the -si's and maybe the miNh, too. JEK > > I see that Buechel gives mi'c^[h]aksic^a 'a small wolf'. Williams > gives mi'c^[h]a, and mi'c^[h]aksic^a, for 'coyote'. Riggs gives both > forms with the gloss 'a small species of wolf'. I suspect Buechel's > listing is from Riggs. > > Incidentally, what is the distribution of ksic^a as 'small' in Dakotan? > This is probably the explanation of the -si in Dhegiha, since *ksika > > *sika. > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 16:40:33 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:40:33 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 18 Jul 2002, at 13:27, Koontz John E wrote: I must admit I've always preferred the 'spirit' interpretation of was^icu. It doen't mean that the Native Americans really thought we were spirits, but they may have thought we looked like them. Back in the Middle East the Persian referred to westerners as c^es^m zaag^ which means 'light blue or grey eyed'. It is not a coincidence I think that Jinns or Spirits were also thought to be c^es^m zaag^ I am signing off today and going to Saudi arabia for a couple of weeks. Wish you all a good summer. I have found the 'wolves, coyotes etc' v. stimulating. Bruce > > In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, > suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals > fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people > object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, > and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic > ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not > sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota > person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism > doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. > (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 16:50:44 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:50:44 +0100 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have always presumed that it applied first to Frenchmen, who were the first the Lakotas or Dakotas met. For that very reason other 'white men' have specific names, while the French don't i.e. Mila HaNska 'American', S^aglas^a, Ogles^a 'British', Spayola 'Mexican'. Bruce On 22 Jul 2002, at 14:06, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? > > Thank you, > > Michael McCafferty > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > Members; > > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I > > know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - > > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this > > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of > > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor > > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. > > > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, > > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - > > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the > > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither > > would was^ic^u derived from that. > > > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural > > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, > > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. > > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, > > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization > > of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , > > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent > > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion > > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of > > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, > > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two > > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals > > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French > > for asparagus. All French from memory.) > > > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' > > 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in > > Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis > > is offered by Buechel ... > > > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a > > consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization > > issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay > > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand > > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. > > > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the > > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be > > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., > > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering > > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of > > the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the > > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' > > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha > > languages have borrowed each others' terms. > > > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept > > the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently > > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various > > explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on > > annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and > > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the > > annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it > > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. > > > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists > > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they > > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when > > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its > > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that > > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. > > > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more > > historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the > > fat' explanation is first attested. > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > 307 Memorial Hall > Indiana University > Bloomington, Indiana > 47405 > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > C.G. Jung > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > Rumi > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 24 17:03:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:03:27 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: <3D3EE2D8.25814.316111@localhost> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is > also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. I suspect so, though I can think ofa folk explanation or two that would ignore the k. The -ksik- (Da ksic^a) 'small' stem shows up here and there. Lipkind points out ksik in Winnebago as a sort of diminutive, and the coyote set I posted seems to have it throughout MV, though in many cases reduced to -si or -i. It may mean 'slender' or 'gracile' or something like that instead. > Maybe mi'c^[h]aksic^a is also the real origin of mayas^lec^a by a > sporadic sound change. I'll have to leave that to the Dakotanists. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 17:51:27 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:51:27 +0100 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It also resemnbles the 'jump' root -psic^a- Bruce On 24 Jul 2002, at 11:03, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is > > also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. > > I suspect so, though I can think ofa folk explanation or two that would > ignore the k. The -ksik- (Da ksic^a) 'small' stem shows up here and > there. Lipkind points out ksik in Winnebago as a sort of diminutive, and > the coyote set I posted seems to have it throughout MV, though in many > cases reduced to -si or -i. It may mean 'slender' or 'gracile' or > something like that instead. > > > Maybe mi'c^[h]aksic^a is also the real origin of mayas^lec^a by a > > sporadic sound change. > > I'll have to leave that to the Dakotanists. > > JEK > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 24 19:20:30 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:20:30 -0500 Subject: Mexico, Indiana and Some Siouan place names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's the story on Mexico, Indiana, and it is a rather unique one locally in its Miami language form, which Dave noted. The name was created for the Indiana village by English-speaking American settlers in 1834 to celebrate the independence of Mexico from Spain. At a time when the Miami language was still quite alive in Indiana, the Miami appear to have translated "Mexico" into their own term for the country. Hence, the coincidence. Dave also mentioned Jalapa, Indiana. From Nahuatl /Sa:la:paN/ 'sandwater-in'. It's a Mexican-American war time creation from the late 1840s. In addition to its many place names created by local native peoples, Indiana also has a truly vast array of native place names that were borrowed into the local English-speaking namescape from tribes that did not live here. Northern Iroquoian place names are the most numerous of this type. The ostensibly Siouan ones include: Anoka, Winona, and the translation Red Cloud. Michael McCafferty On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Quite likely. Yes. > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > > > > >> Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the > > >> town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was > > >> /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name > > >> for the country. > > > > > > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, > > > post diaspora. > > > > Oh, I know. I'm assuming Mexico, Indiana got its name around the same time > > as for the same reasons as the nearby Peru, Indiana (location of the office > > of the Miami Nation of Indiana), Chili, Indiana, and Jalapa, Indiana. > > > > David > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > 307 Memorial Hall > Indiana University > Bloomington, Indiana > 47405 > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > C.G. Jung > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > Rumi > > > > > 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 ". --Rumi From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 24 19:32:09 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:32:09 -0500 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] Message-ID: > > I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is > > also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. > I suspect so, though I can think ofa folk explanation or two that would > ignore the k. The -ksik- (Da ksic^a) 'small' stem shows up here and > there. Lipkind points out ksik in Winnebago as a sort of diminutive,... This is interesting. I got QU /nikka-$ika/ and, I think, Kaw /nikka-$iga/ for 'man, person' or in the term for 'clan' (Dorsey 'gens') several times. At the time, I assumed I had somehow missed nasalization or that it had been omitted accidentally, and that it was a variant pronunciation of /z^iNk/ga/, the usual 'small' term. This would now seem not to be so. Looks like /sika/, /$ika/ (where's xika?) is a distinct term and more than just a sporadic sound change. Bob From daynal at nsula.edu Wed Jul 24 21:38:20 2002 From: daynal at nsula.edu (Dayna Bowker Lee) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:38:20 -0700 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: I have greatly enjoyed following the threads of this discussion. With the caveat that I am not a linguist, I have a couple of bits of information that might be of interest. The Caddo term used for little people - yahyashattsi? or ha'yasatsi, Parsons (Reichard) associates with "lost." More precisely, I suppose, "lost" + diminutive. In Caddo oral tradition, a group of Alabama were said to have been encountered by the Caddo and told them, "We're lost." This group came to be known as ku'yushsahdah (Coushatta). Kuuwi yushsahdah is "I'm lost." The word for ghost is kahayu or kuyu, which may be derived from hakayu (white). ?ín-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people now, but began as a designation for an English person. There were specific terms for each of the dominant groups of white people that the Caddo dealt with during the historic period. A Mexican or Spanish person = ?ispayun. A French person = kah-nuush. Although ?ispayun certainly seems like a Spanish cognate, I don't know the origins of the Caddo words for English and French people. Dayna Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota > I have always presumed that it applied first to Frenchmen, who > were the first the Lakotas or Dakotas met. For that very reason > other 'white men' have specific names, while the French don't i.e. > Mila HaNska 'American', S^aglas^a, Ogles^a 'British', Spayola > 'Mexican'. > > Bruce > On 22 Jul 2002, at 14:06, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > > > Members; > > > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > > > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > > > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > > > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > > > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > > > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > > > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > > > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > > > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > > > > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I > > > know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - > > > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this > > > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of > > > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor > > > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. > > > > > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, > > > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - > > > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the > > > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither > > > would was^ic^u derived from that. > > > > > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural > > > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, > > > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. > > > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, > > > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization > > > of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , > > > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent > > > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion > > > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of > > > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, > > > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two > > > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals > > > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French > > > for asparagus. All French from memory.) > > > > > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' > > > 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in > > > Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis > > > is offered by Buechel ... > > > > > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a > > > consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization > > > issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay > > > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand > > > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. > > > > > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the > > > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be > > > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., > > > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering > > > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of > > > the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the > > > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' > > > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha > > > languages have borrowed each others' terms. > > > > > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept > > > the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently > > > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various > > > explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on > > > annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and > > > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the > > > annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it > > > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. > > > > > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists > > > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they > > > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when > > > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its > > > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that > > > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. > > > > > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more > > > historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the > > > fat' explanation is first attested. > > > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > > 307 Memorial Hall > > Indiana University > > Bloomington, Indiana > > 47405 > > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > > C.G. Jung > > > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > > Rumi > > > > > > > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 24 19:41:26 2002 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:41:26 -0600 Subject: Siouan place names out of place? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The discussion about Indiana inspires me to ask you all about a place I drove through last week in northern Oklahoma -- Watonga. It's Cheyenne-Arapahoe country (after it became Indian territory, of course), but it sure looks to me like it should be from a Dhegiha language and mean something like 'big stuff'. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From shanwest at uvic.ca Wed Jul 24 20:42:30 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:42:30 -0700 Subject: flat structures Message-ID: 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 rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 24 21:13:13 2002 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:13:13 -0600 Subject: flat structures In-Reply-To: <000601c23352$b94a8a00$6436688e@macdonald> Message-ID: Shannon, it's a somewhat different version of the paradigm, but my paper on upstairs and downstairs deletion back in CLS 1973 (You take the high node and I'll take the low node, paravolume to CLS 9) presumes a configurational structure. Of course in those days there was no such distinction -- everything was presumed configurational. However, those tree structures might provide evidence for arguing one way or the other. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > 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 are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Wed Jul 24 22:11:17 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:11:17 -0400 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe waxe is from vacher 'cowboy'? Which would also give it a negative connotation (vache 'nasty')? WEll, it was probably coined before cowboys.. BTW African American in Omaha is 'black whiteman.' -Ardis From shanwest at uvic.ca Wed Jul 24 23:43:09 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:43:09 -0700 Subject: flat structures In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Oh excellent! I have that volume thanks to John Boyle. :) Gives me some nice reading for the evening. Thanks. Shannon > -----Original Message----- > From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.colorado.edu] > Sent: July 24, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Shannon West > Cc: Siouan (E-mail) > Subject: Re: flat structures > > > > Shannon, it's a somewhat different version of the paradigm, but my paper > on upstairs and downstairs deletion back in CLS 1973 (You take the high > node and I'll take the low node, paravolume to CLS 9) presumes a > configurational structure. Of course in those days there was no such > distinction -- everything was presumed configurational. However, those > tree structures might provide evidence for arguing one way or the other. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.colorado.edu] > Sent: July 24, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Shannon West > Cc: Siouan (E-mail) > Subject: Re: flat structures > > > > Shannon, it's a somewhat different version of the paradigm, but my paper > on upstairs and downstairs deletion back in CLS 1973 (You take the high > node and I'll take the low node, paravolume to CLS 9) presumes a > configurational structure. Of course in those days there was no such > distinction -- everything was presumed configurational. However, those > tree structures might provide evidence for arguing one way or the other. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > > > 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 John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 06:06:53 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:06:53 -0600 Subject: Branch, Comb, Sacred. Deceive (Re: Ethnic Terms and Trickster terms) In-Reply-To: <007901c23283$a1ed8e40$e1b5ed81@robertra> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > Koontz> It seems to me that there are a couple of near homophones for > gaghe, which actually are gaxe - something like 'branch (of a stream)' > > That's /gaxa'/ 'creek, branch'. The accent and final V are different. > I don't know about length. Dorsey has xdhabe' gaxa' ge 'the scattered treee branches' (tree branch the-scattered) and gaxa'xa 'with many branches' in the texts, but I know the form gaxa' (to correct it per Bob) referring to 'creek' occurs elsewhere in Dorsey's materials. The texts also have gaxa' 'to go beyond' and gaxa'=tta 'to the side'. Especially interesting is dhi'?e gaxa' 'half the body' which appears to be literally 'flank(s) beyond', but that makes sense because the context is 'eating half the body' (in an eating contest). > > and/or 'comb', > > For the Kaws, that's /gaphe'/, I think. Yes, it's h < *ph in OP, (gi)gahe 'to comb (for someone)'. A 'comb' is mikka'he, which looks like it might be related, but the pattern is unusual, whatever it is! > BTW, in the discussion of the trickster and spider names, the Osage > and Kaw term, /cci/e xop/be/ probably doesn't have anything to do with > /xop/be/ 'sacred, holy'. It is much more likely that it relates to > the verb /ixop/be/ 'to tell lies, deceive'. The /cc(e)/ part remains > a mystery to me, as I don't buy into 'lying buffalo cow'. OP has i'...usis^taN 'to tell lies', and u's^i=...khidhe 'to deceive' (or u's^i=...kkidhe 'to deceive oneself' (dative and reflexive causatives), so I wasn't prepared for that one! I also found wawe'kkittatta 'a deceiver', which may shed light on Quapaw homittatta 'trickster'. So, to conclude this section, there really aren't any convenient near homophones to gaghe 'to make' that would explain wa(a)'xe 'whiteman' and also explain the different fricative there. If it were *wa(a)'xa, it might be 'outsider, one from beyond', I guess. But it isn't. Incidentally, to resolve a point on which I was unclear a while ago, in Omaha-Ponca it is xube' 'sacred, mysterious, wonderful, awe-inspiring', with at least the derivatives dhaxu'be 'to speak in wonder, to express wonder' and waxu'be 'sacred thing'. And waxu'be can be used a modifier, e.g., tti' waxu'be 'sacred tent' or aN'ba waxu'be 'sacred day, Sunday'. I can't find xube (accented maybe xu'be) '(a) drunk' anywhere, but I'm pretty sure I remember it in use. Swetland/Stabler gives xube (accent not indicated) as 'hallowed; holy; wizard'. For 'drunk' in the same source there's dadhiN 'to intoxicate; intoxicated; drunk'. There is dhaxu' maybe dhaghu' (can't tell in the source S/S) 'to suck', which is part of this last set. (I can't find *ghube either in the texts, by the way.) The root *xep ~ *xop ~ *ghop ~ *gho 'to suck' is widely attested in Mississippi Valley, and occurs also in Southeastern (as *xp) and in at least Hidatsa in the NW. This is presumably the connection in 'drunk', though it's possible that 'wizard' is involved. Intoxication is widely regarded elsewhere in the world as a sacred or at least mystery-involving state. The 'suck' sense may also be connected to 'to lie', though it's also possible that there's a connection to the 'sacred' set. Since 'to lie' involves the i-locative, that the sense of the root xobe ~ xope isn't precisely clear. I wouldn't consider it impossible that 'deceit' might have a 'sacred' or 'divine' association. Essentially that's what Trickster embodies. The sacred is not always a positive thing; sometimes it's strange and terrible and destructive. I suppose 'sacred' might also occur in 'lie' by way of a euphemism. However, on the whole, it seems safer to think of three or four similar roots here until we've done a lot more spade work. I don't have a clue as to what the *tti or *tte (c^c^i or c^c^e in Kaw) is on the front of 'Trickster' in Kaw either. Could this c^c^e- be from *s^Re (OP s^ne-, Os sce-)? Not that I can see how that helps, either. INde (iNj^e ?) is 'face'. Ine'gi (ij^egi ?) is 'uncle'. These could be truncated, but the series is wrong for c^c^e - they produce j^e. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 07:18:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:18:46 -0600 Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman Message-ID: Spider, Trickster and whiteman in Crow, Hidatsa, and Manda, as far as I can determine them at present. spider Trickster whiteman Cr awa'kooxe Isa'ahkawuattee baaishtashi'ile 'Causasian' 'Old Man Coyote' ishbi'tchiihachkite 'Frenchman' Lowie gives ba:ictsi'n 'white man' (adapting his notation to ASCII) (c = s^). He gives i:sahkupe' 'trickster'. isahkupe: 'tricky', which seems to be the first element in 'Old Man Coyote' here, or a superset of it. The first part of 'tciskter' might match Lowie's isa:'ka, which seems to be a term for 'mother or father; parent'. Bu'attee is 'coyote', which is the second element here (wuattee in context), so the whole is something like 'tricky coyote'. Hi ??? ??? was^i' [mas^i'] Mitapa is 'tricky'. Itaka is 'old man' (or 'elder'?). Matthews mentions itakatetas^ 'Old Man Immortal' as a deity < ita'ka 'old man' + te 'die' + ta NEG + s^ DEF. The itaka might match Cr isa:'ka (isaahka?). The 'whiteman' term is said to have originally applied to the French and Canadians who are now mas^i'kahti 'true whites'. Ma waN'xtiriNka ??? waNs^i' maN'xtiniNka maNs^i' 'little rabbit' I think 'Trickster' = 'Whiteman', but this isn't stated in Hollow. A couple of interesting derivatives of 'whiteman' in that context: waNs^i' xopiriN 'doctor' (sacred whiteman) waNs^i' oxka 'clown' (foolish whiteman) Of course, these could refer exclusively to 'medical doctor' and 'circus clown', but the terms 'doctor' and 'clown' have traditional uses in connection with describing Plains culture - 'traditional doctor, magician' and 'clown' (in dances and ritual) that might be associated with Trickster. Note also waNs^i psi 'African American' (black whiteman) John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 07:23:55 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:23:55 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > ... I think the fricative is still different, i.e., I think it may be > wana(N)'ghe in an orthography that distinguishes the two. I'll check. Dorsey gives wana'ghi 'ghost'. There is a tendency for his occasional final -i to merge with final -e in LaFlesche's and more modern tranascriptions, e.g., ppaNghi ~ ppaNghe 'Jerusalem artichoke'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 07:52:58 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:52:58 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: <002901c23348$cf5dfb60$c0b5ed81@robertra> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > This is interesting. I got QU /nikka-$ika/ and, I > think, Kaw /nikka-$iga/ for 'man, person' or in the > term for 'clan' (Dorsey 'gens') several times. At the > time, I assumed I had somehow missed nasalization or > that it had been omitted accidentally, and that it was > a variant pronunciation of /z^iNk/ga/, the usual > 'small' term. This would now seem not to be so. Looks > like /sika/, /$ika/ (where's xika?) is a distinct term > and more than just a sporadic sound change. I looked further in OP and found maN'hiN 'knife' :: maN'hiNsi 'arrow head' ppa 'head' :: ppasi' 'tip; top of tree' kkaNde 'plum' :: kkaNsi 'plum stone' (This is probably *su 'kernel, seed') I think there's some evidence that the -si in OP maN'hiNsi is historically *ksi, as many languages show *maNksi for 'arrow head'. JEK From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jul 25 13:37:10 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:37:10 EDT Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman Message-ID: I've been gone for a week and have 185 e-mails to deal with, most of which I haven't read yet. But since I opened this one... Isa'ahkawuattee is composed of isa'ahka 'old man' + bu'attaa 'coyote'. Isahkupe'e 'tricky' won't work because of the vowel length: it has a short 'a' where isa'ahka has a long 'a'. Randy From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jul 25 14:43:24 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:43:24 -0500 Subject: Sacred. Deceive Message-ID: > I also found wawe'kkittatta 'a deceiver', which may shed light on > Quapaw homittatta 'trickster'. Just FYI, I think it's also Quapaw 'monkey' in modern times. > I can't find xube (accented maybe xu'be) '(a) drunk' anywhere, but I'm > pretty sure I remember it in use. Yeah, I think that's the modern, colloquial usage. > There is dhaxu' maybe dhaghu' (can't tell in the source S/S) 'to suck', > which is part of this last set. (I can't find *ghube either in the texts, > by the way.) The root *xep ~ *xop ~ *ghop ~ *gho 'to suck' is widely > attested in Mississippi Valley, That's the Dakotan 'snore' root too. > This is presumably the connection in 'drunk', though it's possible that 'wizard' is >involved. Intoxication is widely regarded elsewhere in the world as a sacred or at least > mystery-involving state. I wonder if it has anything to do with taking wine in comunion? > The 'suck' sense may also be connected to 'to lie', though it's also > possible that there's a connection to the 'sacred' set. Since 'to lie' > involves the i-locative, that the sense of the root xobe ~ xope isn't > precisely clear. I wouldn't consider it impossible that 'deceit' might > have a 'sacred' or 'divine' association. Essentially that's what > Trickster embodies. The sacred is not always a positive thing; sometimes > it's strange and terrible and destructive. I suppose 'sacred' might also > occur in 'lie' by way of a euphemism. However, on the whole, it seems > safer to think of three or four similar roots here until we've done a lot > more spade work. And it's a stative verb too. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 16:24:14 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:24:14 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > kkaNde 'plum' :: kkaNsi 'plum stone' (This is probably *su 'kernel, seed') Incidentally, this is another example of the 'truncating stem' pattern of compound. Presumably kkaNsi < *hkaNt-su. Maybe kkaN'de < *hkaNt-e, though there are certainly other ways to look at it, that don't require e to be treated as a morpheme (of whatever origin). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 16:27:11 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:27:11 -0600 Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman In-Reply-To: <4d.2192679c.2a715906@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > Isa'ahkawuattee is composed of isa'ahka 'old man' + bu'attaa 'coyote'. > Isahkupe'e 'tricky' won't work because of the vowel length: it has a short > 'a' where isa'ahka has a long 'a'. Out of curiosity, what might the analysis of isahkupe'e be? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 26 05:14:38 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 23:14:38 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: [Example from text in Lipkind, retranscribed and analyzed.] > ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra > o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF > > tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. > I finished it DEC > > Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me > here]. > > CR: This one looks to me like a clear example of something preceding > the head -- ware 'work' certainly seems to be the head, as John said, > unless the gloss is somehow misleading. (By the way, John -- I don't > see why this would be "strictly speaking a noun clause" ... what do > you mean?) I meant that perhaps it might be interpreted as I finished [I do ...] but, looking at it again, no, of course not. I was confused. > CR: So this example, assuming head = ware, seems to argue for a > head-internal structure. ... > JEK: And, if I am correctly anticipating the next step, we can argue > that the determiner itself is not the head if we can show that it is > optional. > > ##Huh? Sorry, John. You've lost me here. My fault, probably! > Actually, I might well claim that the determiner (the clause-final one) IS > the head in the sense that the whole construction is a DP. But that's not > the one Johannes is saying is optional, I think (???) And this is a > different "head" than the nominal head of a relative ... What I meant was that if we are trying to show that the clauses are internally headed, then, having demonstrated that the nouns are within the clauses we have to protect against the next argument, which is that the nouns are not the heads, but, rather, the determiners are. Unfortunately, we've just used the externality of the post-clausal determiners to support the claim that the nouns (not adjacent to them) are internal. (I deleted that phase of the argument, so refer back to the original if needed.) So, I offer to counter that analysis by claiming that the determiners are only present if needed, and that when the clause is not definite or deictically indicated (or its head isn't), then the determiner is absent. Or, in short, the determiner is not the head, it is outside the head and modifying it. If it is a head, it's the head of some higher level entity, not the clause. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 26 06:15:16 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:15:16 -0600 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota (fwd) Message-ID: Oops, wrong address! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:44:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Koontz John E To: Dayna Bowker Lee Subject: Re: ethnic terms in Lakota On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Dayna Bowker Lee wrote: > ... ?�n-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people > now, but began as a designation for an English person. ... I don't > know the origins of the Caddo words for English and French people. I'd guess something like this: ?in-ki-nish-ih En g lish I don't know anything about Caddo phonology but I know that you generally have to be ready to match r l n y and edh fearlessly to deal with Plains phonology - historical and in borrowing. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jul 26 14:52:58 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:52:58 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota (fwd) Message-ID: John, I don't know which computer or software you used for this one, but, as you can see, it's giving me the no-go again. Bob. ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:15 AM Subject: Re: ethnic terms in Lakota (fwd) > 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. <> > From Rgraczyk at aol.com Fri Jul 26 16:29:34 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:29:34 EDT Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman Message-ID: In a message dated 07/25/2002 10:27:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > Out of curiosity, what might the analysis of isahkupe'e be? It's not analyzable, although I suspect the first part is the possessive prefix is(a)- Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boris at terracom.net Fri Jul 26 20:13:13 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:13:13 -0500 Subject: Lakota na Dakota Wowapi Oti Kin Message-ID: I thought everyone might be interested in this: From: The Scout Report July 26, 2002 Volume 8, Number 29 Lakota na Dakota Wowapi Oti Kin http://puffin.creighton.edu/lakota/index.html The Lakota na Dakota Wowapi Oti Kin is a one-stop information portal containing Internet resources on people of Lakota and Dakota descent (also known as Sioux or Siouan peoples). Created and maintained by Professor Martin Brokenleg of Augustana College and Dr. Raymond Bucko, S.J. of Creighton University, this site offers Web links in various categories including art and artists / music and musicians, bibliographic resources, demography, education, history, language resources, legal issues, maps, museums, and a host of other Lakota-related sites. For those interested in locating information in the field of Native American studies, specifically on the Sioux peoples, this site is an excellent place to begin your search -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Rgraczyk at aol.com Fri Jul 26 20:42:30 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:42:30 EDT Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: In a message dated 07/18/2002 1:28:43 PM Mountain Daylight Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > > Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of > > these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. > > It's not quite that simple, since the two cases of 'spider' = 'Trickster' > that I know of off the top of my head are Cheyenne and Dakotan, and the > Cheyenne case includes 'whiteman', while the Dakotan case doesn't. On the > other hand, as far as I can recall Mandan also has 'Trickster' = > 'whiteman', but not 'Trickster' = 'spider'. A further dimension, of > course, is whether Trickster is called Whiteman in English by persons of > the group in question. > > In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, > suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals > fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people > object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, > and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic > ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not > sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota > person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism > doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. > (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) > > I'm still getting caught up on my mail, but did want to point out that the > Crow trickster term Isa'ahkawuattee 'Old Man Coyote' is also used, not for > whitemen in general, but for the Catholic priest/Catholic Church. A common > explanation is that the early missionaries had things like mirrors and > matches that were evidence of magical powers, hence the comparison to Old > Man Coyote. Another point of comparison mentioned by some is that Old Man > Coyote taught the people how to live properly, and the priest does the > same. Randy > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jggoodtracks at juno.com Fri Jul 26 18:45:16 2002 From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:45:16 -0500 Subject: Wolverines (Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes) Message-ID: "Wamakashkan" referrs to a variety of animals "traveling about the earth". Riggs says (p.518) that the Dakota use it for "creeping things", while the Lakota use it for "game animals". When used in a ceremonial context, it is made in reference to the Southern Thunder (Direction) and generically for all "meat eatting animals" (wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc.). Jimm On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:18:10 +0100 bi1 at soas.ac.uk writes: > Thanks John > The Stoney one looks like a cognate. It was as you say a list of > animals in Bushotter. It is in text 114, where he groups them as > thalo yul uNpi 'carnivors'. In another text 105 he talks of > 'starnge > animals' wamakhas^saN...os^tekapi, but doen't say what they are. > Possibly the sort that you get in Australia. > > Bruce > n 17 Jul 2002, at 23:16, Koontz John E wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word > mnaja > > > (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. ... I have also seen it in Riggs > Dakota > > > Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. ... > > > > I looked in the Siouan Archives files, and in various dictionaries > and, > > other than the Bushotter and Riggs references found only a Stoney > form > > mnazan. I suppose the -n is the diminutive. I think the fricative > shoift > > is normal. I also checked under 'lion', 'cat', and possible > phonological > > matches without luck. I'd expect something like *naNz^e in > Dhegiha or > > Ioway-Otoe, and like *naNaNs^ in Winnebago, though I also looked > in > > Omaha-Ponca under *bdhaNz^e and in Winnebago under *pa(N)naNs^, > just in > > case. > > > > This doesn't mean there isn't some attestation out there. > > > > I did notice "shanmonikasi" as a variant for 'wolf, prairie wolf, > coyote' > > in IO, attributed to Maximilian. > > > > I also think I saw the Bushotter reference in question. > Interestingly, it > > was a list of animals, and between 'badger' and 'lion' were > ma'yas^lec^a, > > s^uNkmanitu, and s^uNkmanitu thaNka. In the interlinear these > were > > glossed 'coyotes, wolves, and large wolves', and in the free they > were > > glossed 'coyotes, foxes'. > > > > I suppose we can take 'lion' as a way of saying (in English) 'big > cat', > > consistent with 'cat' as a generic preditor term. > > > > JEK > > > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 28 02:02:35 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:02:35 -0600 Subject: Evolution Publishing and Tutelo Message-ID: EP has brought out a new volume, No. 26, Minor Vocabularies of Tutelo and Saponi, comprising Sapir, Frachtenburg, Fontaine, and Byrd, plus a useful nine page essay by Claudio Salvucci. The bibliography of this volume includes Giulia Oliverio's 1996 dissertation. I don't know if the dissertation has been consulted yet, because there's no mention of Dorsey's ms. lexical materials from the NAA that she consulted and introduced to public consideration. It is also stated that 'the most detailed source for the Tutelo-Saponi language is an extended grammatical description by Horatio Hale'. Of course, that's probably still true if we have in mind primary sources and not references. Oliverio includes Dorsey's material along with all of the material in the other sources reproduced in the EP series. She does not reproduce the text of the original sources, and in that sense and others does not replace them as sources. She does apply to the data a thorough modern familiarity with the Siouan languages and she does a considerably better analysis of Tutelo. Oilverio 1996 clearly betters Hale 1883 as a 'grammatical study' and a lexical reference. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 28 03:16:20 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:16:20 -0600 Subject: Sacred. Deceive In-Reply-To: <004101c233e9$a400af20$e2b5ed81@robertra> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > This [*xop etc. as 'suck'] is presumably the connection in 'drunk', > > I wonder if it has anything to do with taking wine in communion? That's an interesting thought, and not at all beyond modern Omaha humor, but I don't know what the terminology of communion is, or if there is one in Omaha. On the other hand, (a) drinking and drunkenness (mostly with hard spirits) were introduced, I think, well before Christian religion, (b) communion ritual seems to me to do a good job of erasing any connection of drinking and inebriation, though certainly does establih one between ritual consumption of some beverage and sanctity, and (c) I'm not sure that the Protestant denominations among the Nebraska groups actually use wine. Some groups of a similar nature that I've participated with in the past use grape juice. Of course, I suppose wine was all that was possible before refrigeration. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 28 03:17:33 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:17:33 -0600 Subject: Calques Message-ID: Thinking about xube in the sense of 'drunk' brought smething else to mind. I've always wondered if the widespread 'fire water' formation [OP ppe(e)'deni] might not originate in a calque of French eau ardent [is this right?]. English tends to use the Gaelic loan whiskey, though 'ardent spirits' is possible. I also wonder about 'money' = 'white metal' [OP maN(aN)'zeska], cf. French argent. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 28 09:46:43 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:46:43 +0100 Subject: Calques Message-ID: Regarding money, white metal etc., Nancy Hickerson pointed out in IJAL in 1985 that the word for money in Kiowa was actually a version of Fr. 'argent'- olho, wioth both o's open and a tonemarking that I don't remember. Silver would have been more readily obtainable than gold for coinage/bullion in the Plains, I guess, if only because of its lower intrinsic cost. Silver equalling money is a calque found in languageas from Welsh to Armenian to Malay. And Spanish 'plata', 'silver' being used colloquially for money, may also have helped. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 4:17 AM Subject: Calques > Thinking about xube in the sense of 'drunk' brought smething else to mind. > > I've always wondered if the widespread 'fire water' formation [OP > ppe(e)'deni] might not originate in a calque of French eau ardent [is this > right?]. English tends to use the Gaelic loan whiskey, though 'ardent > spirits' is possible. > > I also wonder about 'money' = 'white metal' [OP maN(aN)'zeska], cf. > French argent. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Mon Jul 29 04:39:08 2002 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:39:08 -0700 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <006501c2335a$6dd2cd00$6f28c4cc@nsula.edu> Message-ID: It's nice to find an excuse to talk about Caddo. Maybe this should be a Caddoan list too. The Caddo word for Frenchman is especially interesting. It's ka:nush, with an accent on the first syllable. Hoijer's Tonkawa dictionary gives ka:nos for "Mexican", noting its origin in Mexicanos. I suspect that the Caddos borrowed it from the Tonkawas, though I suppose they could have invented it independently. Palatalization of s to sh after u is regular in Caddo, so it's a perfect match. Evidently this word first referred to any European, and then got narrowed down to Frenchmen, while ispayun came to be used for Mexicans. Ghost in Caddo is kahyuh. Any connection with haka:yuh "white" is unlikely, especially because of the h before the y in "ghost". By the way, that h in kahyuh is the murmured one I mentioned earlier, and earlier transcribers often interpreted it as an extra syllable. Hence the spelling kahayu. You find the same extra syllable in Cadohadacho, or however it's spelled, which is really kaduhda:chu?. I've also heard the story about how the Coushatta got their name from Caddo kuyashadah "I'm lost". Sonorants like y get lost intervocalically in Caddo fast speech, so the word can be kuashadah, even closer. It's a cute story. I guess it's just possible that yahyashattsi? for the little people came from "little lost ones" or something like that. I wonder. Wally --On Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:38 PM -0700 Dayna Bowker Lee wrote: > I have greatly enjoyed following the threads of this discussion. With the > caveat that I am not a linguist, I have a couple of bits of information > that might be of interest. The Caddo term used for little people - > yahyashattsi? or ha'yasatsi, Parsons (Reichard) associates with "lost." > More precisely, I suppose, "lost" + diminutive. In Caddo oral tradition, > a group of Alabama were said to have been encountered by the Caddo and > told them, "We're lost." This group came to be known as ku'yushsahdah > (Coushatta). Kuuwi yushsahdah is "I'm lost." > > The word for ghost is kahayu or kuyu, which may be derived from hakayu > (white). ?ín-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people > now, but began as a designation for an English person. There were > specific terms for each of the dominant groups of white people that the > Caddo dealt with during the historic period. A Mexican or Spanish person > = ?ispayun. A French person = kah-nuush. Although > ?ispayun certainly seems like a Spanish cognate, I don't know the origins > of the Caddo words for English and French people. > > Dayna Lee > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 29 06:02:05 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:02:05 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <41106866.1027892348@[192.168.2.36]> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote: > It's nice to find an excuse to talk about Caddo. Maybe this should be a > Caddoan list too. As far as I'm concerned folks are welcome to discuss Caddoan languages on this list. That parallels the Siouan and Caddoan Conference, certainly, which has always been intended as joint. A certain amount of explanation may be required for benighted Siouanists. > The Caddo word for Frenchman is especially interesting. It's ka:nush, with > an accent on the first syllable. Hoijer's Tonkawa dictionary gives ka:nos > for "Mexican", noting its origin in Mexicanos. I suspect that the Caddos > borrowed it from the Tonkawas, though I suppose they could have invented it > independently. Palatalization of s to sh after u is regular in Caddo, so > it's a perfect match. Evidently this word first referred to any European, > and then got narrowed down to Frenchmen, while ispayun came to be used for > Mexicans. I'm thinking that maybe Mexican as an ethnic term covering Euro-Americans must date from Mexican independence, though, right? But that would be after 1821 (War of Independence 1810-1821), by which time the French no longer figured as a colonial power in the area (Louisiana to Spain 1763, to Franch 1803, to United States 1803), so it appears that the terminology has been adjusted substantially in the 1800s. From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 29 18:15:55 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 19:15:55 +0100 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms Message-ID: Dear all: Given the greater proxoimity of Mexicans (of whatever oriign) to where the Caddos lived, I suspect that it was easy enough for Caddos to regard them as the prototypical whiote men, soimply because they'd se more Mexicans than any other white people. The fact that mexico was still a Spanish colony doesn't really affect this, since it was more a question of wherther Spanish (etc) people living in mexico identified themselves as being 'Mexican' which might be important. Lots of whites who had property and salaves in the West Indies called themselves West Indians in the 18th century. Incidentally, there may have been Tlaxcaltec or other nahuatl influence in the Caddo area, since the Caddo word for bread, /dashkat/, is a loan from Nahuatl 'tortilla'. Caddo has absorbed words froma greater range of Native languages than any other Native language I know of. And kanush means Frenchman in Chitimacha, for what it's worth. They had 'espani for 'Spaniard', 'inkinish for 'English' and yah (< ja ) for 'German'. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: Re: Caddo ethnic terms > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote: > > It's nice to find an excuse to talk about Caddo. Maybe this should be a > > Caddoan list too. > > As far as I'm concerned folks are welcome to discuss Caddoan languages on > this list. That parallels the Siouan and Caddoan Conference, certainly, > which has always been intended as joint. A certain amount of explanation > may be required for benighted Siouanists. > > > The Caddo word for Frenchman is especially interesting. It's ka:nush, with > > an accent on the first syllable. Hoijer's Tonkawa dictionary gives ka:nos > > for "Mexican", noting its origin in Mexicanos. I suspect that the Caddos > > borrowed it from the Tonkawas, though I suppose they could have invented it > > independently. Palatalization of s to sh after u is regular in Caddo, so > > it's a perfect match. Evidently this word first referred to any European, > > and then got narrowed down to Frenchmen, while ispayun came to be used for > > Mexicans. > > I'm thinking that maybe Mexican as an ethnic term covering Euro-Americans > must date from Mexican independence, though, right? But that would be > after 1821 (War of Independence 1810-1821), by which time the French no > longer figured as a colonial power in the area (Louisiana to Spain 1763, > to Franch 1803, to United States 1803), so it appears that the terminology > has been adjusted substantially in the 1800s. > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 30 14:32:47 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:32:47 -0600 Subject: Siouan place names out of place? (fwd) Message-ID: I referred the question of Watonga, OK, to Bill Bright who has been working on Native American town names in the US with the aid of various specialists in particular languages. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:26:15 -0600 From: william bright To: Koontz John E Subject: Re: Siouan place names out of place? (fwd) hi david; watonga in OK is supposedly from the same source as watanga in CO (grand co.), i.e. the name of an arapaho leader. Allan Taylor gave me the name as /wo'at��nkoo'�h/ 'black coyote'; cf. /koo'�h/ 'coyote'. cheers; bill ===== In another representation, for those who don't have PCs, wo?ata'a'nkoo?o'h (V' = high pitch vowel, ? = glottal stop). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 30 14:58:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:58:46 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <001601c2372b$fdfaf900$03637ad5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Dear all: Given the greater proxoimity of Mexicans (of whatever oriign) to > where the Caddos lived, I suspect that it was easy enough for Caddos to > regard them as the prototypical whiote men, soimply because they'd se more > Mexicans than any other white people. The fact that mexico was still a > Spanish colony doesn't really affect this, since it was more a question of > wherther Spanish (etc) people living in mexico identified themselves as > being 'Mexican' which might be important. Lots of whites who had property > and salaves in the West Indies called themselves West Indians in the 18th > century. > > And kanush means Frenchman in Chitimacha, for what it's worth. They had > 'espani for 'Spaniard', 'inkinish for 'English' and yah (< ja ) for > 'German'. Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some etymology other than Mexicanos? As far as alternative suggestions. I don't think Canadians works any better, for reasons comparable to the problems with Mexicanos (too late, not quite on target). It's also a poor fit after the first syllable. 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. In this case we would be dealing with a term for the English (originally of French origin) as a generic term for Euroamericans getting specialized for the French presumably during the period of French (and later Spanish) control of the Louisiana Territory? The colonial French continued to handle much of the actual contact and trading in Louisiana during the period of Spanish control. JEK From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Jul 30 15:40:43 2002 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:40:43 -0500 Subject: The 23rd Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference Message-ID: Dear All, I'd like to announce the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference which will be held on August 8th - 10th in conjunction with the LSA Institute at Ann Arbor Michigan. Abstracts concerning any topic in Siouan and Caddoan languages and linguistics are welcome. Abstracts should be no longer than 250 words and can be submitted in hard copy or email form. Abstracts must be received by July 3, 2003. Address for hard copies: John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics 1010 East 59th St. Chicago, IL. 60613 Address for email copies (MSWord and pdf versions preferred or even in the body of the e-mail message): jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Deadline: July 3, 2002 The deadline is early due to the Institute, but hopefully people can begin to think about it now and not wait until the last minute. Since we are somewhat informal late submissions will probably be accepted but we will frown upon it. In addition Ardis Eschenberg and I have set up a webpage for the conference which can be found at: As you can see, we have attempted to catalog all of the previous conference with only partial success. If people have old programs for these conference it would be great to be able to add them to the webpage. You can either mail me hard copies at my home address: John Boyle 5312 South Dorchester Ave. # 2 chicago, IL. 60615 or e-mail them (to the above address) to me if you don't mind typing them up. We are particularly looking for conferences 1, 3-9, 11, 15, 20. Corrections for any errors or typos on the webpage can be e-mailed to Ardis although they are most likely my fault and not hers. Thanks, John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Jul 30 16:16:08 2002 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:16:08 -0500 Subject: 23rd SACLC Message-ID: Dear John, According to the LSA website the 2003 institute will be at Michigan State, not the Univ. of Michigan. Are they wrong? Or will the Siouan meeting be in Ann Arbor? (I don't know anything about this other than what I saw on the web.) Pam ----- Dear all, I'm wrong. I didn't check the location and foolishly assumes it was at Ann Arbor. The Institute (and the SACLC) will be held at Michigan State University which is in East Lansing. Thanks Pam, All the best, John From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Jul 30 18:53:06 2002 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:53:06 -0500 Subject: Assiniboine verbs with verbal complements requiring -pi In-Reply-To: <004501c217c0$a470a2c0$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: 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 just got back from a quick trip to Saskatchewan, where I was able to eliminate "okihi" 'be able to' from the list, and added "i~yushki~" 'to enjoy doing' For those of you keeping track, here's the current list: chinka 'want' i~yushki~ 'enjoy' snokya 'know' shka~ 'try' thawu~kashi~ 'hate to do' washtena 'like' wahoya 'promise' wayuphi 'be skilled at' If anyone recognizes in this list a similar set in some other Siouan (or for that matter, any other) language, I'd welcome suggestions for other verbs that might belong here. So far, I have found these by accident or by guess. I had thought it to be a fairly predictable modal class until I had to eliminate okihi 'to be able'. (I had earlier eliminated "cheyaka" 'must; should' and "shi" 'to tell to do"). I have also given up my hypothesis of emotion as a motivating factor because of "wayuphi". Linda From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 30 19:51:43 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:51:43 +0100 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms Message-ID: Dear all: Herewith some further notes. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Anthony Grant Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Caddo ethnic terms Following John Koontz' posting: > Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas > Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract > chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but > primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the > French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some > etymology other than Mexicanos? If it does, I can't think what it would be. At least in Texas there were Spanish-speaking people responsible to Mexico (for instance people attached to Franciscan missions) before there were francophones, so that the first whites that many Natives would have met would have been 'Mexicans'm, be they Hispanic, Tlaxcaltecs, or whatever. I don't know too well how things would have been in Lousiana, although the number of early loans in languages of the Gulf which are from Spanish exceeds in number and spread those which come from French. Even if they came via Mobilian, Mobilian had to get them from somewhere. > > As far as alternative suggestions. I don't think Canadians works any > better, for reasons comparable to the problems with Mexicanos (too late, > not quite on target). It's also a poor fit after the first syllable. > I agree. Couldn't be 'Cadiens?, perhaps? Just a suggestion (and not one I believe in much). > 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. In Oklahoma Ottawa zhaagnassh (however spelt) is THE word for white man. It occurs in several other Alg. languages which restruicted meanings, and also in early records in some Chiwere and Dhegiha languages. A derivation of kanush from zakanash is a bit farfetched IMHO, givemn that the first vowel in the first form is long in some languages whereas the second /a/ in the second form is a svarabhakti vowel, though one never knows. In this case we would be dealing with a term for > the English (originally of French origin) as a generic term for > Euroamericans getting specialized for the French presumably during the > period of French (and later Spanish) control of the Louisiana Territory? > The colonial French continued to handle much of the actual contact and > trading in Louisiana during the period of Spanish control. > Indeed the French role in much of this area (not just Louisiana) lasted long after anglophones had political control of the region. Anthony > JEK > From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 30 21:06:28 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:06:28 -0400 Subject: The 23rd Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The abstracts are due July 3, 2003 (not quite so early as 3 weeks ago!) <; Also, I think it might be appropriate to note that University at BUffalo and SSILA provided the space for the website. Regards, Ardis On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, John Boyle wrote: > > Deadline: July 3, 2002 > > The deadline is early due to the Institute, but hopefully people can > begin to think about it now and not wait until the last minute. > Since we are somewhat informal late submissions will probably be > accepted but we will frown upon it. > > In addition Ardis Eschenberg and I have set up a webpage for the > conference which can be found at: > > > > As you can see, we have attempted to catalog all of the previous > conference with only partial success. If people have old programs > for these conference it would be great to be able to add them to the > webpage. You can either mail me hard copies at my home address: > > John Boyle > 5312 South Dorchester Ave. # 2 > chicago, IL. > 60615 > > or e-mail them (to the above address) to me if you don't mind typing them up. > > We are particularly looking for conferences 1, 3-9, 11, 15, 20. > Corrections for any errors or typos on the webpage can be e-mailed to > Ardis although they are most likely my fault and not hers. > > Thanks, > > John From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 30 21:12:29 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:12:29 -0700 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms Message-ID: >> 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 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 31 00:30:13 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:30:13 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <000301c23807$c2f11060$484201d5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Following John Koontz' posting: > > Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas > > Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract > > chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but > > primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the > > French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some > > etymology other than Mexicanos? > > ... At least in Texas there were Spanish-speaking people responsible > to Mexico (for instance people attached to Franciscan missions) before > there were francophones, so that the first whites that many Natives > would have met would have been 'Mexicans'm, be they Hispanic, > Tlaxcaltecs, or whatever. I don't know too well how things would have > been in Lousiana, although the number of early loans in languages of > the Gulf which are from Spanish exceeds in number and spread those > which come from French. Even if they came via Mobilian, Mobilian had > to get them from somewhere. The problem is that, in my understanding of the sociology and ethnolinguistics of the situation, the Spanish - metropolitan, creole, or mestizo - from the presidency (or viceroyalty?) of Mexico were never refered to as Mexicans, by themselves or others. In that period the term Mexican would have meant - I think - a native speaker of Nahuatl. The term Mexican would only refer to a Spanish speaker from Mexico after the Mexico became independent and the term Mexico acquired a new, nationalist significance. Prior to that event the term Mexican would have been functionally closer to "Ottawa" or "Ojibwa," i.e., it would have implied a native agent or client, and hence it would not have been a very likely source for a term for a Spanish speaker or a European in general. I suppose there may have been a point at which creoles and especially mestizos began to call themselves Mexicanos just as Americans began calling themselves Americans to some extent before independence. But before a development of national sentiment, calling oneself a Mexicano or an American would have been tantamount to admitting a degree of social inferiority. "Yes, I'm a colonial." So, the term Mexican would not have been available until after c. 1810, probably not until after 1821. And if it had been borrowed at that point, it would likely have replaced an earlier term, since the Caddo had been interacting with both the French and the Spanish regularly for over 100 years at that point. Either it replaced an earlier general term for 'whiteman', or an earlier term for 'Spanish speaker', or there was no earlier term. It seems unlikely it would have replaced an earlier term for French speaker immediately. In any of these cases it is hard to see how, starting at that point it could have become a specific term for French speakers, whose ascendency had ended before this (in 1763 or 1803). So, it seems far more likely that the term came into existence at a point and place when the French were the usual sort of whitemen and was specialized to Frenchmen when regular contact came to include varieties of whitemen other than Frenchmen. This might have happened over the whole range of kanus ~ kanus~ usage all at once, or the term may have specialized with one group and spread to the others after specialization (but before it became irrelevant). Amy of these scenarioes would make it unlikely that the source of the word is Mexicanos. By the time that term is likely to be available, Mexican was in Texas on the verge of being more likely to have been borrowed in its English form than its Spanish one. I may be wrong in explaining Kanus^ as a development of les Anglois 'the English', but it does seem more likely than Mexicanos, The extreme irony of the French being known etymologically as 'the English' is not lost upon me. Of course I am in the odd situation of having to suppose that the term (sa)kanus^ was available in a generic sense 'whiteman' and that subsequently Frenchmen became the dominant whitemen in the area. I think the Lower Mississippi is actually a good context for this. The French were the most prominent earliest explorers of the area (after de Soto), and used Algonquian languages, especially Ottawa/Ojibwa as contact languages. In such a context one might well expect an opposition between 'regular whitemen' and '(sa)kanas' to result in a presence mainly of the latter. The river and the area east of it were disputed between the English and the French in the 1600s and early 1700s, with the English being generally more successful (I think the Chickasaw were among their more prominent agents). This might provide the context for referring to whitemen generally as sakanas^, as most of them would have been 'the English'. But matters settled out so that from 1763 the Louisiana area was in Spanish hands, but with most of the actual European residents and traders being French colonials. After 1763 the Spanish provided mainly the governors and some troops. This would have been an excellent context in which to distinguish the French as ordinary '(sa)kanas^' as opposed to the newly influentiual Spanish. And from that point the chance of meeting a real (sa)kanas^ would have gradually decreased in favor of meeting ones who referred to themselves as Americans or people from some specific English colony. The Ohio Valley Algonquian languages provide a reasonable source for the term (sa)kanas(^), but to make this likely I'd prefer to have some evidence of the term in circulation in Muskogean, Tunica, Natchez, etc., at least in the early period. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 31 00:39:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:39:21 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > >> I think zakanas^ or something like it is found in some Algonquian languages. > > 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': I think that any presentation of summaries actually went to Tony, but I am aware that the term was widespread in Algonquian languages and thatit mean 'the English'. I just don't know the Algonquian forms off the top of my head. > 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 Siouan forms I know by memory are: Teton s^agla's^a Santee s^ahdas^a (I think) OP "sakenash" probably sagdhas^a or sakkenas^a IO "laggerash ~ raggerash" ragras^ I'll have to check these to make sure I haven't lost any final vowels. > 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. How about taking the m- from "an (Englishman)," though I don't see why m instead of n. JEK From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Jul 31 16:24:10 2002 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:24:10 -0700 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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. 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. > I suppose there may have been a point at which creoles and especially > mestizos began to call themselves Mexicanos just as Americans began > calling themselves Americans to some extent before independence. But > before a development of national sentiment, calling oneself a Mexicano or > an American would have been tantamount to admitting a degree of social > inferiority. "Yes, I'm a colonial." That could be more or less the right scenario. We're not concerned here with what these people called themselves, but with what other people (Tonkawas, Caddos, etc.) called them, and it need not have been complimentary. The other suggested origins for ka:nos seem too far-fetched to take seriously. Wally From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 2 15:35:18 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:35:18 -0500 Subject: Fw: Omaha language Message-ID: Folks, This is a note I received from someone, presumably an Omaha, who was inquiring or complaining about someone -- I'm not sure which. Above the original message is my reply to her. Anyone know her or who she might be talking about? I thought it was possible she might be with the group that fellow from NY was representing at the Siouan Conference in Bloomington. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: R. Rankin To: Colleen Flores Cc: Bob Rankin Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Omaha language > Hi, > > I received your note. I'm not sure what web site you > were looking at, nor do I know what Omaha tribal > members and/or linguists you're troubled by. My own > work is mostly with the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma. The > Kaws spoke a language very much like Omaha and Ponca, > so I generally find any publication on Omaha to be very > helpful to me in my own work. As you say, every little > bit helps, and having something is better than nothing > at all. > > All of the linguists studying the Omaha language that I > know are very interested in working with the Omaha > people and would be more than happy to try to help out > in any way they could those individuals you describe > with degrees in education. I think all you'd have to > do is contact them. People who know languages with > relatively few speakers almost always argue a bit among > themselves over the meanings of words and correctness > of grammar and pronunciation. It is natural that each > of us follows the usage of our own family elders. > There's nothing wrong with this -- language is always > changing bit by bit and meanings and usage do vary from > family to family and person to person. This is just as > true of English as it is of Omaha actually. What is > important is that groups like the Omahas get together > and work these little problems out in a friendly > manner. If they split into factions, it just becomes > that much harder to preserve the language and teach it > successfully. And as we all know, learning a language > isn't all that easy to begin with! > > I will pass your message along to Ardis Eschenberg, > Catherine Rudin and John Koontz, all of whom have > academic interests in the Omaha language and people. > > Best wishes, > > Bob Rankin > Linguistics Department > University of Kansas > Lawrence, KS 66044 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Colleen Flores > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:05 AM > Subject: Omaha language > > > > I just came across the web. I am disappointed that > the real people of > > the OMAHA have not been included in the credits of > the Omaha language. > > We have excellent people who have BS. Degrees in > Education, whom I know > > personally that are disappointed in what is being > written and published > > without full consent of the real PEOPLE who speak and > use the daily in > > the home. None of these people have use the language > on a daily basis. > > > > > > The dictionary by Swetland is somewhat of a slang > usage. Numerous > > meanings have been omitted. > > But this is better than not having anything to work > with. If sir, you > > have any material available to share with me I would > appreciate it. > > I do know Mr. Swetland personally, right now he is > recovering from > > surgery. I like to explore any information > pertaining to the Omaha > > language. > > Colleen Flores Omaha > > cflores at unihc.com > > fax(402)43-7180 > > From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jul 2 18:01:15 2002 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Sweltand) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:01:15 -0700 Subject: Omaha language Message-ID: 02 July 2002 Aloha All: Colleen Webster Flores is a member of the Omaha Tribe... and one of my granddaughters. Isn't it "refreshing" in a Machiavellian way to be blindsided by one of your own relatives? I do not know which website she is refering to (perhaps brother John Koontz's?) ... nor do I know the NY fellow Bob mentions. Language ownership, control, and the presumption of financial gains to be garnered by such control routinely surfaces as a topic of debate at Macy. Naturally all of us scholars are filthy rich by our ill-gotten gains from ripped-off indigenous languages... we just hide the wealth, enit? I will email Colleen directly and inquire for details about the website and her concerns. best Uthixide Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Anthropology/Native American Studies University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: "Siouan list" Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:35 AM Subject: Fw: Omaha language > Folks, > > This is a note I received from someone, presumably an > Omaha, who was inquiring or complaining about > someone -- I'm not sure which. Above the original > message is my reply to her. Anyone know her or who she > might be talking about? I thought it was possible she > might be with the group that fellow from NY was > representing at the Siouan Conference in Bloomington. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: R. Rankin > To: Colleen Flores > Cc: Bob Rankin > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: Omaha language > > > > Hi, > > > > I received your note. I'm not sure what web site you > > were looking at, nor do I know what Omaha tribal > > members and/or linguists you're troubled by. My own > > work is mostly with the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma. The > > Kaws spoke a language very much like Omaha and Ponca, > > so I generally find any publication on Omaha to be > very > > helpful to me in my own work. As you say, every > little > > bit helps, and having something is better than > nothing > > at all. > > > > All of the linguists studying the Omaha language that > I > > know are very interested in working with the Omaha > > people and would be more than happy to try to help > out > > in any way they could those individuals you describe > > with degrees in education. I think all you'd have to > > do is contact them. People who know languages with > > relatively few speakers almost always argue a bit > among > > themselves over the meanings of words and correctness > > of grammar and pronunciation. It is natural that > each > > of us follows the usage of our own family elders. > > There's nothing wrong with this -- language is always > > changing bit by bit and meanings and usage do vary > from > > family to family and person to person. This is just > as > > true of English as it is of Omaha actually. What is > > important is that groups like the Omahas get together > > and work these little problems out in a friendly > > manner. If they split into factions, it just becomes > > that much harder to preserve the language and teach > it > > successfully. And as we all know, learning a > language > > isn't all that easy to begin with! > > > > I will pass your message along to Ardis Eschenberg, > > Catherine Rudin and John Koontz, all of whom have > > academic interests in the Omaha language and people. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Bob Rankin > > Linguistics Department > > University of Kansas > > Lawrence, KS 66044 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Colleen Flores > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:05 AM > > Subject: Omaha language > > > > > > > I just came across the web. I am disappointed that > > the real people of > > > the OMAHA have not been included in the credits of > > the Omaha language. > > > We have excellent people who have BS. Degrees in > > Education, whom I know > > > personally that are disappointed in what is being > > written and published > > > without full consent of the real PEOPLE who speak > and > > use the daily in > > > the home. None of these people have use the > language > > on a daily basis. > > > > > > > > > The dictionary by Swetland is somewhat of a slang > > usage. Numerous > > > meanings have been omitted. > > > But this is better than not having anything to work > > with. If sir, you > > > have any material available to share with me I > would > > appreciate it. > > > I do know Mr. Swetland personally, right now he is > > recovering from > > > surgery. I like to explore any information > > pertaining to the Omaha > > > language. > > > Colleen Flores Omaha > > > cflores at unihc.com > > > fax(402)43-7180 > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 2 17:11:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:11:46 -0600 Subject: Fw: Omaha language In-Reply-To: <005101c221de$1288b280$e2b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: I'm not sure what this is about either, though I suspect it might refer to my web site. If it doesn't, I'd be interested to know what web site it does refer to. I wonder if it's about the list of links to other Siouanist sites that I included. I'd be glad to add additional links to that, or even regular addresses for people who are working on Omaha or other Siouan languages. I certainly don't claim any credit for Omaha or Ponca, which happened beatifully without any help from me. On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > Folks, > > This is a note I received from someone, presumably an > Omaha, who was inquiring or complaining about > someone -- I'm not sure which. Above the original > message is my reply to her. Anyone know her or who she > might be talking about? I thought it was possible she > might be with the group that fellow from NY was > representing at the Siouan Conference in Bloomington. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: R. Rankin > To: Colleen Flores > Cc: Bob Rankin > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:30 AM > Subject: Re: Omaha language > > > > Hi, > > > > I received your note. I'm not sure what web site you > > were looking at, nor do I know what Omaha tribal > > members and/or linguists you're troubled by. My own > > work is mostly with the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma. The > > Kaws spoke a language very much like Omaha and Ponca, > > so I generally find any publication on Omaha to be > very > > helpful to me in my own work. As you say, every > little > > bit helps, and having something is better than > nothing > > at all. > > > > All of the linguists studying the Omaha language that > I > > know are very interested in working with the Omaha > > people and would be more than happy to try to help > out > > in any way they could those individuals you describe > > with degrees in education. I think all you'd have to > > do is contact them. People who know languages with > > relatively few speakers almost always argue a bit > among > > themselves over the meanings of words and correctness > > of grammar and pronunciation. It is natural that > each > > of us follows the usage of our own family elders. > > There's nothing wrong with this -- language is always > > changing bit by bit and meanings and usage do vary > from > > family to family and person to person. This is just > as > > true of English as it is of Omaha actually. What is > > important is that groups like the Omahas get together > > and work these little problems out in a friendly > > manner. If they split into factions, it just becomes > > that much harder to preserve the language and teach > it > > successfully. And as we all know, learning a > language > > isn't all that easy to begin with! > > > > I will pass your message along to Ardis Eschenberg, > > Catherine Rudin and John Koontz, all of whom have > > academic interests in the Omaha language and people. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Bob Rankin > > Linguistics Department > > University of Kansas > > Lawrence, KS 66044 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Colleen Flores > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:05 AM > > Subject: Omaha language > > > > > > > I just came across the web. I am disappointed that > > the real people of > > > the OMAHA have not been included in the credits of > > the Omaha language. > > > We have excellent people who have BS. Degrees in > > Education, whom I know > > > personally that are disappointed in what is being > > written and published > > > without full consent of the real PEOPLE who speak > and > > use the daily in > > > the home. None of these people have use the > language > > on a daily basis. > > > > > > > > > The dictionary by Swetland is somewhat of a slang > > usage. Numerous > > > meanings have been omitted. > > > But this is better than not having anything to work > > with. If sir, you > > > have any material available to share with me I > would > > appreciate it. > > > I do know Mr. Swetland personally, right now he is > > recovering from > > > surgery. I like to explore any information > > pertaining to the Omaha > > > language. > > > Colleen Flores Omaha > > > cflores at unihc.com > > > fax(402)43-7180 > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 2 20:06:06 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:06:06 -0500 Subject: Fw: Omaha language Message-ID: I can't figure why she'd write me if it was your website she was looking at. Maybe she was looking at the KU website and found me. I certainly don't have anything posted on Omaha though. Or maybe she found the SSILA web site and the lists of people interested in different languages. She used my old email address -- actually about 3 addresses back, so it's an older source. As I told Mark, sometimes people just feel "left out" and if they get invited to participate, they're happy. That's what I basically tried to signal in my reply to her. I leave it to the 4 or 5 of you to do what you wish about contacting her. BTW I will not have email service over July 4th. KU is "upgrading" email service then. Har de har har. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan list Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Omaha language > I'm not sure what this is about either, though I suspect it might refer to > my web site. .... From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Jul 3 22:49:00 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:49:00 EDT Subject: ?uN as AUX V. Message-ID: There is an "a" that occurs in Crow between a main verb and a conjoined continuative auxiliary, e.g.: huu-a-lawi'-k come-A-continue-DECL 'he kept coming, he was coming along' It also shows up in Hidatsa, and Mandan has a ha: 'simultaneous'. Could these be related to uN? It's hard to know when you are dealing with such short morphemes. Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 3 23:42:07 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:42:07 -0600 Subject: ?uN as AUX V. In-Reply-To: <117.13e707df.2a54d95c@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > There is an "a" that occurs in Crow between a main verb and a conjoined > continuative auxiliary, e.g.: huu-a-lawi'-k > come-A-continue-DECL > 'he kept coming, he was coming along' > > It also shows up in Hidatsa, and Mandan has a ha: 'simultaneous'. Could > these be related to uN? It's hard to know when you are dealing with such > short morphemes. I think the vowel would still be nasalized in Mandan, unless it was borrowed from Crow-Hidatsa. But the Mandan form sounds like it is used somewhat differently from the Crow-Hidatsa -a-. Siouan is fairly full of cases of linking -a-. This is part of the ablaut / epenthetic vowel problem. Perhaps it is relevant that Dhegiha also has something like a linking -a- with continuatives. Specifically, the proximate article forms akha and ama (or apa ~ aba, etc.) have that initial a- and also function as continuative markers (agreeing with the class of a proximate subject). JEK From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jul 5 18:25:16 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:25:16 -0500 Subject: ?uN as AUX V. Message-ID: Hard to say, isn't it? I also remember a few cases at least where Dakota had a nasal -aN at the end of certain verbs, but I think other subgroups had an oral vowel there. In these instances I'm wordering if we're dealing with a lexicalized reflex of -?uN that reduced to -aN when unaccented and affixed. This is why I said I thought this was a dissertation topic! The syntax/morphotactics of some of these vowels may give clues.... Bob >There is an "a" that occurs in Crow between a main verb and a conjoined continuative auxiliary, e.g.: huu-a-lawi'-k come-A-continue-DECL 'he kept coming, he was coming along' It also shows up in Hidatsa, and Mandan has a ha: 'simultaneous'. Could these be related to uN? It's hard to know when you are dealing with such short morphemes. Randy From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Sat Jul 6 19:44:21 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:44:21 -0500 Subject: Omaha language Message-ID: I think I've met Colleen Webster (Flores). The name certainly rings a bell, though maybe it's just because I've had so many other Websters in my classes in Macy... I'm glad Mark will contact her. I myself plan to keep out of it as much as possible, unless she calls or writes me (which she is of course welcome to do -- Mark or anyone else who talks to her should feel free to pass on my address etc.) I'm afraid I'm probably perceived on the reservation as someone who has no apparent reason to be interested in the language but inexplicably keeps popping up; teaching a class, coming around asking questions ... no doubt one of those outsiders getting rich off ill-gotten knowledge, as Mark says. It might do more harm than good for me to go pushing myself in here. I know at least a couple of students have been resentful that I knew more Omaha than they did. There's a lot of frustration by people who feel like they ought to know "their own language"... The web site could be anything. Maybe searching for Omaha language she ran across the site of some conference where one of us gave a paper, or someone's vita on a university site, or one of the Linguist List "does any language do this" queries that John has answered with Omaha data. Who knows! A little web access is a dangerous thing. About the mysterious "NY fellow" -- could Bob mean "the NE fellow", i.e. Richard Chilton? He did show up at one meeting, perhaps the Bloomington one -- I haven't heard anything of him or his partner Margery Coffey in a couple of years. Anyhow, this is mostly just to signal you guys that I'm following the discussion but don't intend to do anything. Bob's letter was an excellent, diplomatic response; hopefully she'll feel less "left out" now. Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 7 07:11:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 01:11:21 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht on 'Nouns and Verbs in Hochank (Winnebago)' Message-ID: I'm probably not the only member of the list who noticed Johannes Helbrecht's article in IJAL 68.1 on Winnebago parts of speech? This is, of course, of general interest to all Siouanists, and, even if the Hochank have done a very good job of being different I don't think any non-specialists in Winnebago among us (which would be just about everybody, sadly) are going to find the details obscure. Johannes takes of the problem of distinguishing nouns from verbs in Winnebago, and concludes that 'The semantics of hypothetical noun words alone is not a reliable way to determine their status. However, words that are close to the semantic prototype of nouns are likely to be classified as nouns in Hochank. Evidence of their syntactic category must be found in their morphosyntactic behavior.' The problem is mainly that nouns have essentially no morphologically characterizing behavior, and the morphological behavior that characterizes verbs includes a large number of forms that semantics, or at least analogy with English and other European languages, would consider to be nouns. Johannes also specifically points out that independent of the question of morphological characteristic various forms listed in the available Winnebago dictionaries are double listed as both nouns and verbs, e.g., niNiNha' 'to breathe, to chant' and 'breathing, breath, throat'. (Incidentally, this (1) and the next example (2) that he lists accidentally label the v.'s as n.'s and the n's as v.'s.) You'll probably notice some analogies with the questions that Bruce Ingham was tackling recently in IJAL for Teton, and also that the answers aren't always the same in different Siouan languages, though the basic problem is certainly familiar, namely how do you tell a noun from a verb if (a) nouns have no nominal morphology [Verbs have the possobility though not always the necessity of being a bit better equipped, morphologically.] (b) roots that feel like nouns can often be used verbally, with no derivational morphology and precious little inflectional morphology, and, especially, (c) it appears to be possible to treat any clause (from a verb root on up to a multi-word construction) as a noun, usually without any nominalizing morphology. It's true that there is often an article or something of that ilk following the nominalized things, but a little further inspection generally reveals that this is only there when it's needed to mark definiteness (or whatever other ilk-iness is relevant). I have a number of questions and comments on this article, but I think, in the interest of making any discussion that arises manageable, I'll try to put them in separate letters. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 8 03:09:35 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:09:35 -0600 Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' Message-ID: Lipkind (1945:17) refers to the Winnebago prefix wa- 'which probably means 'something' or 'thing' ... [and] is used to make transitive verbs intransitive and to form nouns out of active and stative verbs' as the 'modal prefix'. Johannes says 'this is definitely a misnomer', and I'd certainly agree if I thought Lipkind had anything like the contemporary sense of modal in mind. This prefix definitely has nothing to do with concepts like ability, possibility, obligation and the like. However, I've always assumed that Lipkind had in mind here either an old usage of modal or some idiosyncratic usage of his own, in which modal was an adjective meaning 'having to do with modes' and distinctions like transitive vs. intransitive or verb vs. noun (and perhas also indicative vs. subjunctive) were conceived of as different modes of signification. Does anyone know of such a usage? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 8 05:40:38 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:40:38 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: Johannes Helmbrecht (2002:7) says of Winnebago wa- (which is a pretty standard pan-Mississippi Valley or even pan-Siouan wa-) that it has three uses: '(a) it may be translated as 'something' etymologically deriving from the indefinite pronoun waz^aN 'something', (b) it functions as a detransitivizer, and (c) it may it is the third person plural object pronoun 'them' of transitive verbs.' The first and second categories seem essentially the same to me, though (b) is put in more technical, if more limited, terms. If I had to take a stab at it, and I guess we all do, from time to time, I'd say something like wa- eliminates the patient argument, where patient is to be understood in Siouan, not universalist terms. [This last qualification is something that Carolyn Quintero always points out if I don't.] We do usually think of wa- as detransitivizing with transitive verbs, but that doesn't help much with the business of deriving nouns from intransitive verbs, because if a transitive verb makes a perfectly good nominal, with or without wa-, as it generally does, it's not clear why a stative intransitive verb would require detransitivization or even "patient argument satisfying" to make a noun of it. And that applies in spades with active intransitives, of course. This is where (a) helps, because we can fall back on a notion that wa- is a morpheme that translates as 'something that ...s' or 'something that is ...' or 'it ...s something', and so on. I guess we're saying informally that wa- marks derivations that have 'something' as head? I've suggested in the past, without really pursuing it, that maybe what wa- really does is mark a sort of focus or orientation toward a particular argument. I think this is really tantamount to 'derivations with something as head', i.e., "focus" = headedness. Another way to think of it is to treat wa- as a sort of incorporated noun. So rather than wa- with transitives meaning 'the object is irrelevant - we don't care what it is' it means 'we know what the object is, so we don't need to mention it explicitly'. This is not detransitivization in the sense of eliminating an argument. It is detransitivization in the sense of satisfying the argument from the context. So when the cryer at an Omaha feast says wathatHe ga ho 'eat!' he doesn't mean 'eat [anything at all]' or 'engage in the activity of eating', he means 'eat [the stuff provided]' or 'eat [this stuff right here]'. In short, 'something-eat' or 'stuff-eat' not just 'eat'. And with intransitive verbs rendered into nouns you get '[the thing that] x-es' or '[the thing that is] x'. Using some of Lipkind's examples, more or less adapted to modern orthography: ruu'c^ 'to eat it' waru'c^ not 'eat' but actually 'eat the food' dee'x 'to urinate' (also 'urine') wade'x 'bladder', i.e., 'the thing that urinates' s^iNiN' 'be fat[ty]', was^iN' 'fat', i.e., 'that which is fatty' Incidentally, I thought I was being greatly daring in my SACC paper in putting the accent mark on Winnebago long vowels on the second vowel character, but I see that Johannes is doing this, too. I heartily approve. ---- When Johannes derives wa- from waz^aN' 'something', I htink he's going a bit far. Lipkind himself suggests that waz^aN' is from wa- + hiz^aN INDEF ART. Actually, we can be pretty sure from the wide distribution of wa- in Siouan, and the lack of wide distribution of -z^aN or of waz^aN' or even of hiz^aN' that wa- is just wa-, and waz^aN and hiz^aN are artifacts of Winnebago (or of Winnebago-Chiwere). Bob Rankin actually considers that hiz^aN is connected with the various extended forms of 'one' used in counting in Mississippi Valley. It is possible that waz^aN' is derived from wa- plus z^aN, less likely that it's derived from wa- plus hiz^aN' as Lipkind suggests. Johannes also suggests in a footnote that the third function of wa- in Winnebago, the marking of the third person object with transitive verbs, is 'a further step in the grammaticalization of this form' and that comparative Siouan evidence for this needs to be obtained. In fact, it has been, though with the usual Siouanist obscurity. The use of wa- as a third person patient plural with transitive verbs is general in Mississippi Valley Siouan, except for Dakotan, where wic^ha- occurs as its vicar, to borrow a term from ecology (not to mention the Church). For example: OP JOD 1890:17.17-18 nikashiNga enoN=xti wa'thatHa= bi=ama human beings only really they ate them PL QT they ate nothing but human beings Here the wa'- is 'them' - it's accented with verbs in th (*r). It's an interesting question whether the wic^ha- situation in Dakotan should be seen as an alternative to the wa- situation in Winnebago, Ioway-Otoe, and Dhegiha, or as a replacement of it. And on the answer to this turns a great part of the question of the timing of the extension of wa- to third person plurals. I would, however, say that it is an extension, just as Johannes suggests. It doesn't occur in this way outside of Mississippi Valley, not even in Mandan or Tutelo, as far as I know. I have the distinct impression that in OP one gets more mileage out of considering that the category 'third person plural object' is filled with the wa-form of the verb stem than from considering that there is a pronominal prefix wa- separate from the 'modal prefix' wa-. For one thing, both wa-morphemes engage in the same set of contractions with other things. Also, both condition the extraposition of the first person agent, first person patient, and inclusive agent markers to a position before wa-, and the morphosyntactic location of both wa-morphemes is the same. ----- One other note on wa-. Johannes says (2002:7) that Lipkind doesn't mention wii- < wa-hi-, i.e., wa- plus the *i-locative. He certainly doesn't make much of a deal of it, but it is is mentioned in passing, on p. 17 in the section Modal Prefix, last paragraph, and on p. 26, in the section on contractions of prefixes, under '(c) Verbs with the prefix hi contract:' I can understand how that could be overlooked, as there is no development of the notion, and as anyone who's used Lipkind knows, the table of contents of the volume has the form: Phonology 1 Morphology 12 Text 58 Notes for Text 62 There is no index, everything is excessively concise, the typeface is horrible, and the orthography somewhat idiosyncratic. It's not as hard to work with as Marten's dissertation, however. Charactersitically for the time, it also has essentially nothing on syntax, though there is a section on Word Order (three paragraphs, pp. 56-57), so perhaps "Syntax 56" might be added to the table of contents. JEK From shanwest at uvic.ca Mon Jul 8 08:53:47 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:53:47 -0700 Subject: Algonquian List Message-ID: The Algonquian List appears to be set up. I asked them to change the name to something more recognisable, but it's been 4 weeks, so I'm assuming the answer is no. If for some reason that changes, I'll let you all know. To send messages to the list: alfl at uvvm.uvic.ca To send commands to the server: listserve at uvvm.uvic.ca LISTSERV Commands on UVVM All of the following commands are e-mailed to listserv at uvvm.uvic.ca The subject line is left blank (will be ignored) and, in the body of the mail, any of the following commands can be entered. Multiple commands can be in a single mail message. Minimum abbreviations and required fields are in UPPERCASE. General User Commands SUBscribe - the command used to add your ID to a list: SUBscribe ALFL FirstName LastName For example, SUB ALFL Chris Cringle SIGNOFF - the command used to cancel your list subscription: SIGNOFF ALFL For example, SIGNOFF ALFL REVIEW - the command used to see who else is subscribed and review the list settings: REView [LISTNAME] For example, REV ALFL LIST - will provide a list of lists available either at that site or globally. For example, to get a list of lists on UVVM, enter LIST For example, to get a list of all public LISTSERV lists on the network, enter LIST GLOBAL I've added these people who either expressed interest or asked to be subscribed. ahartley at d.umn.edu Alan Hartley Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Anthony Grant enichol4 at attbi.com Eric Nicholson john.koontz at colorado.edu John Koontz When you are added, you will get a long list of instructions and a welcome. In there is a paragraph saying that this group is confidential. Ignore that. It's part of the form letter, and although I asked them to remove it, it's still there. Shannon From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Mon Jul 8 15:37:27 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:37:27 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: John wrote: >Johannes Helmbrecht (2002:7) says of Winnebago wa- (which is a pretty standard pan-Mississippi Valley or even pan-Siouan wa-) that it has three uses: '(a) it may be translated as 'something' etymologically deriving from the indefinite pronoun waz^aN 'something', (b) it functions as a detransitivizer, and (c) it may it is the third person plural object pronoun 'them' of transitive verbs.' Seems to me in all three cases wa- is/replaces an argument, indefinite but generally identifiable in context ... In my sloppy way, in trying to make sense of Omaha I mentally translate wa- as "stuff" and it just about always works... In short, I basically agree with John. Catherine From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jul 8 16:08:57 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:08:57 -0500 Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' Message-ID: I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". To me, voice is what the more current notion of "valence" is all about. I'm surprised at the 'to eat' and 'to eat the food' pair, since I'd have expected sort of the reverse meanings. The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) to just mean something like 'to go around eating' -- the wa- ought to take away the object. My mistake I guess. Are you sure there's only one wa-? As usual I suspect homophony here. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:09 PM Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' > Lipkind (1945:17) refers to the Winnebago prefix wa- 'which probably means > 'something' or 'thing' ... [and] is used to make transitive verbs > intransitive and to form nouns out of active and stative verbs' as the > 'modal prefix'. Johannes says 'this is definitely a misnomer', and I'd > certainly agree if I thought Lipkind had anything like the contemporary > sense of modal in mind. This prefix definitely has nothing to do with > concepts like ability, possibility, obligation and the like. However, > I've always assumed that Lipkind had in mind here either an old usage of > modal or some idiosyncratic usage of his own, in which modal was an > adjective meaning 'having to do with modes' and distinctions like > transitive vs. intransitive or verb vs. noun (and perhas also indicative > vs. subjunctive) were conceived of as different modes of signification. > Does anyone know of such a usage? > > JEK > From strechter at csuchico.edu Mon Jul 8 19:36:26 2002 From: strechter at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:36:26 -0700 Subject: Ken Hale Prize Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting. Nominations solicited for the Ken Hale Prize ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SSILA's Ken Hale Prize, being inaugurated this year, is presented annually in recognition of outstanding community language work and a deep commitment to the documentation, preservation and reclamation of indigenous languages in the Americas. The Prize (which carries a small monetary stipend and is not to be confused with the LSA's Kenneth Hale Book Award) will honor those who strive to link the academic and community spheres in the spirit of Ken Hale, and recipients will range from native speakers and community-based linguists to academic specialists, and may include groups or organizations. No academic affiliation is necessary. Nominations for the award may be made by anyone, and should include a letter of nomination stating the current position and affiliation (tribal, organizational, or academic) of the nominee or nominated group, and a summary of the nominee's background and contributions to specific language communities. The nominator should also submit a brief port- folio of supporting materials, such as the nominee's curriculum vitae, a description of completed or on-going activities of the nominee, letters from those who are most familiar with the work of the nominee (e.g. language program staff, community people, academic associates), and any other material that would support the nomination. Submission of manuscript-length work is discouraged. The nomination packet should be sent to the chair of the Committee: Sara Trechter Linguistics Program/English Department California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0830 Inquiries can be e-mailed to Sara Trechter at (strechter at csuchico.edu). The deadline for receipt of nominations has been extended to October 15, 2002. The 2002 Ken Hale Prize will be announced at the next annual meeting of SSILA, in Atlanta, in January 2003. The other members of this year's selection committee are Randolph Graczyk and Nora England. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 8 23:28:54 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:28:54 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: <006801c22699$c4e3a420$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". To me, voice > is what the more current notion of "valence" is all about. I'm > surprised at the 'to eat' and 'to eat the food' pair, since I'd have > expected sort of the reverse meanings. The verb 'eat' ordinarily > implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect waruuc (or waaruc or whatever > it is) to just mean something like 'to go around eating' -- the wa- > ought to take away the object. My mistake I guess. Are you sure > there's only one wa-? As usual I suspect homophony here. I suspect Bob is replying to the quibbles post, rather than the terminological post, when he comments on the 'eat something' gloss. This raises an interesting procedural point that I've noticed in the past. In glossing transitive verbs, e.g., 'eat', I tend to write something like: ruu'c^ vt. 'to eat something' (Bob's 'eat SOMEthing') The subject argument is implicit, the 'something' indicates that this verb has/makes/requires an object reference. An actual sentence like ruu'c^-s^aNnaN would be 'he ate it'. On the other hand, with a detransitivized verb I'd write: waru'c^ va. 'to eat' In other words, I'd use just 'eat' to suggest use without an implicit object. And, an actual sentence like waru'c^-s^aNnaN would be glossed 'he ate' or 'he ate something', with the something intended to emphasize the lack of an explicit argument. The weirdness is that including 'something' in the gloss in the lexicon emphasizes transitivity, while including 'something' in the gloss in a text or interlinear situation emphasizes detransitivization. This bothers me a bit, but I think we're doomed to things like this when dealing with incommensurate systems. Anyway, I should emphasize that the additional twist of suggesting that wa- forms involve not the absence of an argument (usually object), but the indication of a contextually implicit argument, is mine. Lipkind offers a pretty straightforward account, and the glosses I included were mine, not his. From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 9 02:48:33 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:48:33 -0400 Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: <006801c22699$c4e3a420$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: Ok, I admit that I don't have the article (we just moved and if I got it before moving, Rob packed it (where?!!!) or it just hasn't been forwarded yet) but I think of wa and non-wa marked verbs (in Omaha anyway) as activity versus accomplishment (or active-accomplishment) (a la Van Valin and LaPolla or, originally, Vendler's aktionsart). Many accomplishment verbs (no wa added) become activities when the wa is added. There are also verbs which are basic activites which don't need the wa added to make them so. I can't remember the verb and can't find my notes of course but I got one nice example this year of a verb I expected to function as activity-active accomplishment but turned out to not take wa. Doubt this sheds any light, but it works very consistently and avoid calling this phenomenon voice or mode (Mode is way overused anyway). Regards, Ardis On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". > To me, voice is what the more current notion of > "valence" is all about. I'm surprised at the 'to eat' > and 'to eat the food' pair, since I'd have expected > sort of the reverse meanings. The verb 'eat' > ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) to just mean > something like 'to go around eating' -- the wa- ought > to take away the object. My mistake I guess. Are you > sure there's only one wa-? As usual I suspect > homophony here. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Koontz John E > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:09 PM > Subject: Helbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' > > > > Lipkind (1945:17) refers to the Winnebago prefix wa- > 'which probably means > > 'something' or 'thing' ... [and] is used to make > transitive verbs > > intransitive and to form nouns out of active and > stative verbs' as the > > 'modal prefix'. Johannes says 'this is definitely a > misnomer', and I'd > > certainly agree if I thought Lipkind had anything > like the contemporary > > sense of modal in mind. This prefix definitely has > nothing to do with > > concepts like ability, possibility, obligation and > the like. However, > > I've always assumed that Lipkind had in mind here > either an old usage of > > modal or some idiosyncratic usage of his own, in > which modal was an > > adjective meaning 'having to do with modes' and > distinctions like > > transitive vs. intransitive or verb vs. noun (and > perhas also indicative > > vs. subjunctive) were conceived of as different modes > of signification. > > Does anyone know of such a usage? > > > > JEK > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 03:49:55 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:49:55 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote: > Doubt this sheds any light, but it works very consistently and avoid > calling this phenomenon voice or mode (Mode is way overused anyway). > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > > I always thought of this as "voice" rather than "mode". > > To me, voice is what the more current notion of > > "valence" is all about. Just in case there's any doubt, I'm not actually suggesting that we start (or resume) calling wa- the modal prefix. I was just wondering if anyone had encountered any precedent for this unusual usage. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 04:04:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:04:27 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Note: I've been carefully restoring the -m in Helmbrecht as penance for omitting it originally. On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Ardis R Eschenberg wrote: > ... I think of wa and non-wa marked verbs (in Omaha anyway) as > activity versus accomplishment (or active-accomplishment) ... Many > accomplishment verbs (no wa added) become activities when the wa is > added. There are also verbs which are basic activites which don't > need the wa added to make them so. ... I'm sorry the example of the verb unexpectedly not taking wa- to form an activity verb is misplaced (activity). I hope it turns up again (accomplishment)... I seem to recall that Carolyn Quintero has examples of verbs that take both wa- and an explicit nominal object in Osage. I've done les reading of Van Valin and LaPolla than perhaps I should have - none in fact - and I'm not in a position to quickly remedy that. I'm wondering if activity verbs are inherently intransitive or accomplishment verbs inherently transitive? Speaking in a non-technical sense, I can see, for example, where wa- = activity would work to explain the class of wa-statives, e.g., washushe 'be brave', wakHega 'be sick', etc. At least the latter is also nicely handled by treating wa- as a stand in for thing in which the illness resides, taking the approach that most of the wa-statives are experiencer verbs, agreeing with the experiencer as a patient. I'll admit that that approach doesn't seem to jive with washushe. (We discussed these experiencer verbs extensive about a year ago, and the discussion can be retrieved from the archives.) JEK From voorhis at westman.wave.ca Tue Jul 9 04:43:43 2002 From: voorhis at westman.wave.ca (voorhis at westman.wave.ca) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:43:43 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix' Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > In glossing transitive verbs, e.g., 'eat', I tend to write something like: > > ruu'c^ vt. 'to eat something' (Bob's 'eat SOMEthing') > > The subject argument is implicit, the 'something' indicates that this verb > has/makes/requires an object reference. > > An actual sentence like ruu'c^-s^aNnaN would be 'he ate it'. > > On the other hand, with a detransitivized verb I'd write: > > waru'c^ va. 'to eat' > > In other words, I'd use just 'eat' to suggest use without an implicit > object. > > And, an actual sentence like waru'c^-s^aNnaN would be glossed 'he ate' or > 'he ate something', with the something intended to emphasize the lack of > an explicit argument. > > The weirdness is that including 'something' in the gloss in the lexicon > emphasizes transitivity, while including 'something' in the gloss in a > text or interlinear situation emphasizes detransitivization. This bothers > me a bit, but I think we're doomed to things like this when dealing with > incommensurate systems. I think of wa- as (usually) just expressing an indefinite object/goal/patient 'something, things (object)', as several people have pointed out including John just above. But it is surely no more intransitivizing than any other object a transitive verb may take; all objects with transitive verbs yield verb phrases that take no (further) object, just like an intransitive verb. When a Siouan transitive verb (at least in those languages I'm familiar with) has no explicit object, a third person singular personal-pronoun object is implicit 'him, her, it' When an Indo-European transitive verb has no explicit object, an indefinite object is typically implicit. So 'eat' in English means 'eat something', but ruuc in Winnebago means 'eat him, her, or it'. (And in fact, a subject 'he' or 'she' is also implicit unless the verb is imperative in which case subject 'you' is implicit, the latter situation like English, of course.) While glossing ruuc 'eat something' to signal transitivity will work, 'eat it' is more accurate and would not make -s^aNnaN in ruucs^aNnaN 'he ate it' look like it means 'it (past-tense object)' when it is actually indicative affirmative. (And ruuc is actually interrogative in Winnebago, still more accurately to be glossed 'ate it?'). Paul From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 05:09:04 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:09:04 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') In-Reply-To: <006801c22699$c4e3a420$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) ... One of the little appreciated aspects of Winnebago vowel length is that it is somewhat variable. My understanding is that Winnebago lengthens monosyllables, so, whatever the implicit length of ruc^, it would be ruu'c^ (or ru'uc^, as Miner would position the accent). I don't know if adding enclitics affects this, so I don't actually know if it's ru'c^-s^aNnaN or ruu'c^-s^aNnaN, for example, when you add the declarative. I do know that the declarative is s^a(N)naN after consonants, naN after vowels, which seems like a good candidate for an unusual phonological rule, if anyone is collecting them. This verb doesn't inflect regularly, so it's not possible to see if the first person, say, is *haruu'c^ or *haru'c^, revealing whether the stem is inherently long or not. In fact, the first person is haa' c^, the second person raa'c^, which will no doubt strike the Dakotanists as familiar looking. But, the inclusive is given by Miner as hiNnu'c^, and the wa-form (or activity form, perhaps) is waru'c^ in the same source, so I think we can take this as an underlying short-stem |[ru'c^]|, to the extent that it has a stem ... And, looking around, this is a common pattern: CVV'C : haCV'C. I haven't yet noticed any CVV'C : haCVV'C. Now, the next step is to look at the inflection of the wa-form, and in the first and second persons Miner gives waha'c^ and wara'c^, not, for example, *wahaa'c^ and *waraa'c^. So it seems that the length of haa'c^ and raa'c^ is also due to monosyllabicity, rather than inherent length, though these are certainly candidates for contracted forms. A further step, is to look at wa+ha+ruc^, which, as expected by analogy with Dhegiha is 'table' ('something to eat on'). This is waaru'c^, which is what you expect if you start with Pre-Winnebago (a lot like Chiwere or even Dhegiha, though the root is different there) *wa-a'-ruc^e and apply first deletion of final e after simple stops, then Dorsey's Law (no effect), and then Winnebago Accent Shift. A point to make here is that everyone who works directly with Winnebago - and Helmbrecht is no exception - takes the approach that morphemes like the locatives ha, hi, ho, or the pronominals ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12, etc., are h-initial, but lose these h's when something precedes them. So wa-ha is waa-, for example. From a comparativist point of view, however, a more likely scenario is that Winnebago just adds an epenthetic haitch to the start of words that begin underlyingly with a vowel. Notable exceptions are verbs that we think of for comparative reasons as *?-initial, like *?uN 'to do', which is uNuN in Winnebago. (First person, incidentally, is ha?uN' - glottal stop, short stem vowel.) Another kind of exception seems to be initial long vowels, like aagi' 'be ready', or at least monosyllables like aa' 'arm'. I suppose working with Winnebago speakers it must be clear that their perception is that the h is organic. There are some interesting wrinkles to that situation, however. First, the first person does lose its h in contractions usually, e.g., per Lipkind ha < ha + ha. But notice that now we would expect to have haa with an epenthetic h before long a. In fact, checking the inflection of ha-verbs in Miner, I do find mostly haaCV'... first persons, e.g., hac^i' 'to live on' vs. haac^i' 'I live on', but you have to be careful, because an underlying n-stem, for example, will behave differently, e.g., hanaNxguN' 'to listen' vs. hanaNaN'xguN 'I listen'. There is normally a shift of accent in an n-stem first person, e.g., naNaNs^e' 'to take away from' vs. naNaN's^e 'I take away form'. There is also haniN' 'to live' and 'I live', but Miner gives 'I live' as haaniN' in his first IJAL article on Winnebago accent, so the dictionary entry is probably a typo. Then consider the verb 'to eat' mentioned above. The wa-form had the first person waha'c^, not waa'c^. No loss of h here. Perhaps of interest here is that though Dhegiha simply lacks any initial in all the first person pronouns, e.g., OP a A1, aN P1, aN A12, Ioway-Otoe, a close relation of Winnebago, has ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12. Neither the Dhegiha languages nor Ioway-Otoe have epenthetic haitch. (In fact, the closest case I can think of is in Shawnee.) So perhaps h-initials in first person pronominals have a sort of half-way status between organic and epenthetic. Another interesting h-context is the causative, which is a suffixed ha A1, ra A2, hi A3. The inflection of 'to kill', for example, is t?ee'hi 'to kill' vs. t?ee'ha 'I killed'. Note also t?ee'wahi < t?ee'-wa-ha-hi 'I killed them'. But both h's are lost after a consonant, e.g., ceebi' 'to consume' vs. ceeba' 'I consume', but ceebwa'hi 'to consume something'. I'm not sure why the two different accentual patterns for monosyllabic root causatives. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 06:01:30 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 00:01:30 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper: wii- as an indicator of nounhood Message-ID: Naturally Johannes is very interested in finding ways to diagnose nouns vs. verbs in Winnebago. One of his candidates is wii- < wa-(h)i- 'something with which to', of which he suggests (2002:18) that 'nearly all derivations with wii- are nominal in the sense that they are not personally inflected'. This puzzled me, since I interpret it as meaning that he doesn't think wii-forms are ever inflected, and I wouldn't expect the corresponding w(e)e'-forms to be uninflectable in Omaha-Ponca,and I don't think the analogous forms are uninflectable anywhere else in Siouan. In Miner's glossary I find, for example, wiigi'kara'p 'add up, v. tr.', wigi's^aNnaN' 'to do wrong to s.o.; damage or destroy property', wiigi'ze 'lade, n.; dish out, v.tr.', wiike'rak 'be still', wiira'k?o 'eat everything up'wiiru'wiN 'sell, v. tr.', wiiwa'gax 'pencil, n.; pawn, v. tr.'. Also wikigu'c^ 'be (with more than one person)'. Miner does more than assert that these are verbs - he provides first persons, and the patterns are: Stem Class Stem Form First Person < Historically Underlying Form *ka-instr: wiigi'... wa'i... < *wa-a-i-ki (OP we'agi... with wegi... dative) ??? wiigi'... wawia'i... < *wa-wa-i-a-ki- wiki... wawia'ki... < *wa-wa-i-a-hki- (These examples seem to be dative and reflexive. The pattern of wawi- resembles what happens when you add wa- to itha in OP. Itha is like Dakota iya or Winnebago hira, a compound of the i and a locatives. Wa + itha in OP becomes wawe or wa+a+wa+i, with the locatives apparently reversed. Where the second wa comes from in the Winnebago context I can't say. I'm not even sure where it comes from in the Omaha-Ponca context! At least OP starts with two locatives. Perhaps the Winnebago forms are actually or historically mixed paradigms?) regular: wiikere... wiakere... < *wa-i-a-kr *r-stem: wiir... wiit... < *wa-i-p-r- *p-stem: wiiw... wiip... < *wa-i-h-p- The patterns of inflection of wii-forms are somewhat irregular and perhaps unexpected, but it does seem to be possible to inflect wii-forms. As Johannes observes in his paper, the forms in question are often ambivalent, serving both as nouns and as verbs as far as English-based interpretations go. Most wii-forms in Miner don't have verbal glosses or inflected forms listed. It seems to me rather likely, though, that this is partly the luck of the draw. I'd bet, for example, that wiiwa'c^gis 'saw, n.' can be inflected as 'I sawed something, you sawed something, etc.' The questions are, can we distinguish which they are generally or in a given context, and how? I think the inflectability of wii-forms makes this a bit more difficult. JEK From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Jul 9 15:12:45 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:12:45 EDT Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: I heartily agree with Catherine's translation of wa- as "stuff." That generally works well for Crow, too. Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 15:29:31 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:29:31 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles In-Reply-To: <182.acc3c87.2a5c576d@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > I heartily agree with Catherine's translation of wa- as "stuff." That > generally works well for Crow, too. I think stuff works, but maybe better for mass-noun objects? I'm kicking myself for eliciting words like 'saw' (Omaha we'basaN) and not going on to ask how to say 'I sawed the wood?', 'Did you saw the wood?', 'I wonder if they will saw the wood for us?' and so on. At one time Bob Rankin proposed we should assemble a set of suggestions for Siouan fieldworkers - verbs likely to be irregular, elicit all persons of verbs or at least 1st, 2nd, inclusive, etc. Maybe we should add to that, elicit all persons of any nouns that seem to be of verbal origin? Find out how to say 'it is a whatever', too? Not to mention how to say 'there is a whatever'. JEK From cqcqcq at pgtv.net Tue Jul 9 16:04:04 2002 From: cqcqcq at pgtv.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:04:04 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: My translation for wa- in Osage is "stuff" or "folks". And yes to JEK's idea that I have many examples with subjects, such as wabra'htaN 'I drink stuff' (usually understood as alcoholic drinks) where -b- is the subject and the verb is dha'htaN 'drink'. Carolyn Q. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles > I heartily agree with Catherine's translation of wa- as "stuff." That > generally works well for Crow, too. > > Randy From BARudes at aol.com Tue Jul 9 16:58:57 2002 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:58:57 EDT Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles Message-ID: For what it is worth, Catawba has a particle wi which is usually used as a third person plural definite object proclitic. (The third person singular/plural indefinite object proclitic is pa.) However, there are constructions where it occurs but a reading with a third person plural object is not logical. Siebert referred to wi in those cases as a detransitiving particle. The particle w(i) may also have at one time served as a nominalizer in Catawba (Bob has some good examples in his paper on Siouan, Catawba and Yuchi), but it was replaced in this usage in Catawba by the particle d'apa 'something' (as in dapac'ikpu:? 'toad' [lit. "something-forward-stumble"], compare: cikhip'u:re: 'one stumbles forward'). In Woccon, it was replaced by ru-, which may be cognate with the Catawba relative pronominal stem du- as in du'we 'who', du'weye 'nothing'. The particle is also probably related to the Catwaba alienable possessive suffix -wa? 'one's, his, her; your (plural); their', where the final -a? is common to all of the alienable possessive suffixes (-na? 'my', -ya? 'your (singular), -?a:? 'our'). The replacement of w(i) as a nominalizer in Catawba and Woccon by indefinite pronominal forms may an old pattern in Siouan-Catawban. Certainly, the meaning of Catawba d'apa 'something' is not too far off from 'stuff'. From Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Tue Jul 9 17:01:08 2002 From: Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:01:08 +0200 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, of course I followed the discussion John started on occasion of the appearance of my paper on nouns and verbs in Hocank (Winnebago). I cannot reply to all aspects John and the others dealt with in their contributions and I have to admit that I cannot say anything about the historical-comparative background of the various forms in Hocank, although I dared to produce and to repeat (Lipkind) some speculations on the origin of wa- in may paper. I am grateful to John having indicated the weaknesses of such speculations on the basis of the present knowledge of comparative Siouan. What I know from research within the field of grammaticalization is that third person pronouns mostly derive etymologically form demonstrative pronouns, but may also occasionally go back to nominal sources designating general concepts such as THING, PERSON etc. These may be also the source for indefinite pronouns such as something, somebody etc. This was the background for thinking of the possibility of waz^aN as a source for wa- in Hocank, but alas, there seems to be no comparative evidence for it. So, instead of pursuing this question further, I would rather like to present some details of the synchronic usage of wa- in Hocank, as far as I found out. This could also be of interest for comparative purposes, since the exact functional/ distributional behavior of this form may be different with the respective cognates in other Siouan languages. First of all, I think the characterization of wa- as an P argument filling 3rd person pl pronoun is correct. Each transitive verb in Hocank may take wa- indicating a third person plural, no matter whether the P participant is human, animate or inanimate. In this case, the P NP is optional (cf. 1a-b). If the P NP is there, wa- pluralizes the referent of this NP (cf. 1c). Example (1d) shows that wa- can be used only in case that the P NP is definite (def. article), and (1e) shows that wa- is not obligatory, in cases where the referent of the P NP is pluralized by means of a numeral. (1) gu?c^ 'to shoot so/sth' (Vtr) a) caa-r? ha-g?c^ 'I shoot the deer' deer-the I-shoot b) waa-g?c^ 'I shoot them' /wa-ha-/ them-I-shoot c) caa-r? waa-g?c^ 'I shoot the many deer' (lit. I shoot them, the deer) deer-the I->them-shoot d) *caa waa-g?c^ e) caa-r? jo?p ha-g?c^ 'I shoot four deer' deer-the four I-shoot There are only a few cases - as far as I found out - where wa- is indeed used with transitive verbs as a true intransitivizer. Such an example is the case ru?c 'to eat sth' which happened to be discussed in some of the list contributions. Here, the wa- prefix seems to fill the P slot of the verb without allowing a free P NP, i.e. there is no anaphoric agreement with the NP referring to the food to be eaten. I give the relevant examples in (2a-b). (2) ru?c^ 'to eat sth' a) ks^? ru?c^ 'he eats an apple' apple he.eats b) wa-ruc^-n?Nk-s^aNaN ?-eat-prog(sitting)-DECL He is eating (sitting). c) *ks^?-ra wa-ruc^-n?Nk-s^aNaN apple-the ?- eat-prog(sitting)-DECL 'he is eating(sitting) the apples' Example (2c) shows that the verb war?c^ is rather an intransitive verb than a transitive one with a specific P argument. In this case, wa- cannot refer to the P NP, no matter whether it is a count noun such as apples or rather a mass noun such as wan?N 'meat'. It is this type of examples where wa- is usually translated with 'something'. This war?c^ case (standing for some others too) requires some explanation. Is it the same form as the wa- in the examples in (1) ?. Wa- in (2) rather resembles an indefinite pronoun here reducing the valence of ru?c^ by demoting the P argument. One might also argue that there is a semantic connection, a continuum between the two usages of wa- in (1) and (2) in terms of specifity. A plural participant is more specific than an indefinite (not known and not specific) participant, but less specific than a 3sg participant. You all know that 3sg is not marked at all in Hocank verbs. The war?c^case suggests that the P participant is put back from syntax (case frame) to the lexical meaning of the word. Other verbs such as woor?k (< wa+hor?k) 'to tell stories (etym. 'to tell them' ?)' and wooh? (< wa+hoh?) 'to win (etym. 'to defeat them' ?)' work very similar. The next piece in the mosaic of wa- is the fact that wa- productively derives nouns (or other verbs) from intransitive verbs only to a very limited degree. E.g. the verb s^is^re 'to be broken, to break (intr)' is not possible with wa-. There are not so many cases in the Hocank lexicon (cf. Zep's lexicon) where an stativ intransitive verb takes wa- to recieve a nominal meaning. An example in this direction is wa-c^?k 'young person, virgin' (< wa- + ce?k 'new'). Lipkind gives other examples, but they are not contained in the lexical sources available for Hocank (which I consider a bad sign for the correctness of his examples). In the vast majority of cases, wa- is restricted to the P slot in the case frame of a tr. verb. This result is significant because it clarifies to some extent the quite general assumption that wa- is simply a valence reducing affix or something of that sort. Generally, it does not reduce the valence of an intransitive verb and it is certainly not the case that wa- is a productive means to derive nouns from intransitive verbs. Now, the reason why I had to discuss the wa- forms in my paper was the claim by Lipkind that wa- is a nominalizing affix. The problem with this claim is that many of the proposed nominalization in the lexicon can be used also as verbs, some are, however, lexicalized in a nominal meaning, ie. the original verb which is the basis of the derivation is no longer be used as verb. I shall illustrate this. (3) a) woon?Nz^iN 'shirt' (< wa-honaz^i) b) honaNz^?N 'to stand in it' (4) a) wook?NnaNk 'cap, hat' (< wa-hok?NnaNk) b) hok?NnaNk 'to wear sth. on the head' c) woor?kaNaNk /wa-ho-ra-kaNaNk/ ?- stem-2sgSubj-wear 'You wear several hats' (5) a) woox? 'grave' (etym. probably from /wa-ho-xe/) b) *hox? 'to bury in it' The proposed noun woon?Nz^iN 'shirt' (< wa-honaNz^iN) can be used with an article (or without) as a referential expression in a clause referreing to a shirt, it can also be used as predicate in the sense somone is standing in them. The verbal basis is the verb honaNz^?N 'to stand in it' with the locative prefix ho- introducing a direct object slot into the case frame of the verb naNz^?N 'to stand'. The same holds for the "noun" wook?NnaNk 'cap, hat' which is based on a regular verb hok?NnaNk 'to wear sth. on the head'. Example 4c demonstrates that the proposed noun can be used as a kind of intransitve active verb which has incorporated the object of the wearing into the the lexical meaning by incorporating the wa- prefix. That wa- occurs also in fossilized? nominal derivations can be illustrated with example (5). The noun woox? 'grave' is morphologicaly transparaent with regard to the potential derivation, but there is no independent verb *hox? 'to bury in it' which could be the basis for the derivation, and in addition, the noun woox? cannot be used as verbal predicate. There are also many verbs in the Hocank lexicon which begin with wa- where the wa- belongs to the stem and is not a derivational prefix, this is e.g. the case with wag? 'to mean to designate' which is conjugated by an infix between wa- and -ge, like in derivations, but both components are part of the stem. This are some of the facts about wa- in Hocank. I do not really know what to do with it. One might doubt that wa- is a single morpheme as Bob indicated in his contribution and I really would like to see that there are two forms for the functions of wa- in other Siouan languages. If this is not the case, one has to stick with the multifunctionality of wa-. I think I have shown to some extent that the functions/ meanings of wa- are not completely disparate, they are therefore better described in terms of polysemy than arbitrary homonymy. Johannes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Johannes.Helmbrecht.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Johannes Helmbrecht URL: From KATHLEEN_DANKER at sdstate.edu Tue Jul 9 17:42:59 2002 From: KATHLEEN_DANKER at sdstate.edu (DANKER, KATHLEEN) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:42:59 -0500 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8, Jul 2002, John Kuntz wrote: "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that their perception is that the h is organic." This was certainly true of the late Felix White, Sr., with whom I worked for several years. When I would ask him to spell out taped Ho Chunk phrases, he would regularly reinsert h sounds that had not been pronounced. He wrote the h sound in the syllabary with a star symbol which he said stood for "the breath." This had religious significance for him because it was connected with the breath of the creator and the sacredness of the Ho Chunk language. K.D. Danker >On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect > > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) ... > >One of the little appreciated aspects of Winnebago vowel length is that it >is somewhat variable. > >My understanding is that Winnebago lengthens monosyllables, so, whatever >the implicit length of ruc^, it would be ruu'c^ (or ru'uc^, as Miner would >position the accent). I don't know if adding enclitics affects this, so I >don't actually know if it's ru'c^-s^aNnaN or ruu'c^-s^aNnaN, for example, >when you add the declarative. I do know that the declarative is s^a(N)naN >after consonants, naN after vowels, which seems like a good candidate for >an unusual phonological rule, if anyone is collecting them. > >This verb doesn't inflect regularly, so it's not possible to see if the >first person, say, is *haruu'c^ or *haru'c^, revealing whether the stem is >inherently long or not. In fact, the first person is haa' c^, the second >person raa'c^, which will no doubt strike the Dakotanists as familiar >looking. But, the inclusive is given by Miner as hiNnu'c^, and the >wa-form (or activity form, perhaps) is waru'c^ in the same source, so I >think we can take this as an underlying short-stem |[ru'c^]|, to the >extent that it has a stem ... And, looking around, this is a common >pattern: CVV'C : haCV'C. I haven't yet noticed any CVV'C : haCVV'C. > >Now, the next step is to look at the inflection of the wa-form, and in the >first and second persons Miner gives waha'c^ and wara'c^, not, for >example, *wahaa'c^ and *waraa'c^. So it seems that the length of haa'c^ >and raa'c^ is also due to monosyllabicity, rather than inherent length, >though these are certainly candidates for contracted forms. > >A further step, is to look at wa+ha+ruc^, which, as expected by analogy >with Dhegiha is 'table' ('something to eat on'). This is waaru'c^, which >is what you expect if you start with Pre-Winnebago (a lot like Chiwere or >even Dhegiha, though the root is different there) *wa-a'-ruc^e and apply >first deletion of final e after simple stops, then Dorsey's Law (no >effect), and then Winnebago Accent Shift. > >A point to make here is that everyone who works directly with Winnebago - >and Helmbrecht is no exception - takes the approach that morphemes like >the locatives ha, hi, ho, or the pronominals ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12, etc., >are h-initial, but lose these h's when something precedes them. So wa-ha >is waa-, for example. From a comparativist point of view, however, a more >likely scenario is that Winnebago just adds an epenthetic haitch to the >start of words that begin underlyingly with a vowel. Notable exceptions >are verbs that we think of for comparative reasons as *?-initial, like >*?uN 'to do', which is uNuN in Winnebago. (First person, incidentally, is >ha?uN' - glottal stop, short stem vowel.) Another kind of exception seems >to be initial long vowels, like aagi' 'be ready', or at least >monosyllables like aa' 'arm'. > >I suppose working with Winnebago speakers it must be clear that their >perception is that the h is organic. > >There are some interesting wrinkles to that situation, however. First, >the first person does lose its h in contractions usually, e.g., per >Lipkind ha < ha + ha. But notice that now we would expect to have haa >with an epenthetic h before long a. In fact, checking the inflection of >ha-verbs in Miner, I do find mostly haaCV'... first persons, e.g., hac^i' >'to live on' vs. haac^i' 'I live on', but you have to be careful, because >an underlying n-stem, for example, will behave differently, e.g., >hanaNxguN' 'to listen' vs. hanaNaN'xguN 'I listen'. There is normally a >shift of accent in an n-stem first person, e.g., naNaNs^e' 'to take away >from' vs. naNaN's^e 'I take away form'. There is also haniN' 'to live' >and 'I live', but Miner gives 'I live' as haaniN' in his first IJAL >article on Winnebago accent, so the dictionary entry is probably a typo. > >Then consider the verb 'to eat' mentioned above. The wa-form had the >first person waha'c^, not waa'c^. No loss of h here. Perhaps of interest >here is that though Dhegiha simply lacks any initial in all the first >person pronouns, e.g., OP a A1, aN P1, aN A12, Ioway-Otoe, a close >relation of Winnebago, has ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12. Neither the Dhegiha >languages nor Ioway-Otoe have epenthetic haitch. (In fact, the closest >case I can think of is in Shawnee.) So perhaps h-initials in first person >pronominals have a sort of half-way status between organic and epenthetic. > >Another interesting h-context is the causative, which is a suffixed ha >A1, ra A2, hi A3. The inflection of 'to kill', for example, is t?ee'hi >'to kill' vs. t?ee'ha 'I killed'. Note also t?ee'wahi < t?ee'-wa-ha-hi 'I >killed them'. But both h's are lost after a consonant, e.g., ceebi' 'to >consume' vs. ceeba' 'I consume', but ceebwa'hi 'to consume something'. >I'm not sure why the two different accentual patterns for monosyllabic >root causatives. > >JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 18:05:55 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:05:55 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles In-Reply-To: <003b01c22762$47d95960$0e15460a@direcpc.com> Message-ID: > My translation for wa- in Osage is "stuff" or "folks". > And yes to JEK's idea that I have many examples with subjects, such as > wabra'htaN 'I drink stuff' (usually understood as alcoholic drinks) > where -b- is the subject and the verb is dha'htaN 'drink'. I meant I thought you had cases where there was a nominal object with a wa-form of a verb. I probably said this wrong the first time. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 9 18:14:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:14:27 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht IJAL Paper: Some Semantic and Etymological Quibbles In-Reply-To: <19c.4f06137.2a5c7051@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 BARudes at aol.com wrote: > For what it is worth, Catawba has a particle wi which is usually used as a > third person plural definite object proclitic. (The third person > singular/plural indefinite object proclitic is pa.) For what it's worth, pa > wa might be a source of *wa- as a third person plural (definite) marker in Siouan, though (a) the third person plural definite *wa- in Siouan is only attested in Mississippi Valley and (b) I don't know if there is any other basis for presuming PSC *pa > PMVS *wa. The sound change *p > w occurs in the development of Winnebago-Chiwere, and explains the alternation stem initial w : fist person p in Winnebago. > However, there are constructions where it occurs but a reading with a > third person plural object is not logical. Siebert referred to wi in > those cases as a detransitiving particle. The particle w(i) may also > have at one time served as a nominalizer in Catawba (Bob has some good > examples in his paper on Siouan, Catawba and Yuchi), ... I'm not sure if I see wa- as a nominalizer in Siouan or as verbal prefix that occurs for other reasons in certain kinds of verbs that are frequently nominalized. I think the consensus, though, is that wa- itself acts rather like an incorporated nominal. JEK From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 9 23:30:53 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:30:53 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') Message-ID: > "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that > their perception is that the h is organic." What exactly do you mean by 'organic' here, John? Dave Costa ---------- >From: "DANKER, KATHLEEN" >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') >Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2002, 10:42 am > > On Mon, 8, Jul 2002, John Kuntz wrote: > "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that > their perception is that the h is organic." > > This was certainly true of the late Felix White, Sr., with whom I > worked for several years. When I would ask him to spell out taped Ho > Chunk phrases, he would regularly reinsert h sounds that had not been > pronounced. He wrote the h sound in the syllabary with a star symbol > which he said stood for "the breath." This had religious > significance for him because it was connected with the breath of the > creator and the sacredness of the Ho Chunk language. > > K.D. Danker > > >>On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: >> > The verb 'eat' ordinarily implies 'eat SOMEthing', so I'd expect >> > waruuc (or waaruc or whatever it is) ... >> >>One of the little appreciated aspects of Winnebago vowel length is that it >>is somewhat variable. >> >>My understanding is that Winnebago lengthens monosyllables, so, whatever >>the implicit length of ruc^, it would be ruu'c^ (or ru'uc^, as Miner would >>position the accent). I don't know if adding enclitics affects this, so I >>don't actually know if it's ru'c^-s^aNnaN or ruu'c^-s^aNnaN, for example, >>when you add the declarative. I do know that the declarative is s^a(N)naN >>after consonants, naN after vowels, which seems like a good candidate for >>an unusual phonological rule, if anyone is collecting them. >> >>This verb doesn't inflect regularly, so it's not possible to see if the >>first person, say, is *haruu'c^ or *haru'c^, revealing whether the stem is >>inherently long or not. In fact, the first person is haa' c^, the second >>person raa'c^, which will no doubt strike the Dakotanists as familiar >>looking. But, the inclusive is given by Miner as hiNnu'c^, and the >>wa-form (or activity form, perhaps) is waru'c^ in the same source, so I >>think we can take this as an underlying short-stem |[ru'c^]|, to the >>extent that it has a stem ... And, looking around, this is a common >>pattern: CVV'C : haCV'C. I haven't yet noticed any CVV'C : haCVV'C. >> >>Now, the next step is to look at the inflection of the wa-form, and in the >>first and second persons Miner gives waha'c^ and wara'c^, not, for >>example, *wahaa'c^ and *waraa'c^. So it seems that the length of haa'c^ >>and raa'c^ is also due to monosyllabicity, rather than inherent length, >>though these are certainly candidates for contracted forms. >> >>A further step, is to look at wa+ha+ruc^, which, as expected by analogy >>with Dhegiha is 'table' ('something to eat on'). This is waaru'c^, which >>is what you expect if you start with Pre-Winnebago (a lot like Chiwere or >>even Dhegiha, though the root is different there) *wa-a'-ruc^e and apply >>first deletion of final e after simple stops, then Dorsey's Law (no >>effect), and then Winnebago Accent Shift. >> >>A point to make here is that everyone who works directly with Winnebago - >>and Helmbrecht is no exception - takes the approach that morphemes like >>the locatives ha, hi, ho, or the pronominals ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12, etc., >>are h-initial, but lose these h's when something precedes them. So wa-ha >>is waa-, for example. From a comparativist point of view, however, a more >>likely scenario is that Winnebago just adds an epenthetic haitch to the >>start of words that begin underlyingly with a vowel. Notable exceptions >>are verbs that we think of for comparative reasons as *?-initial, like >>*?uN 'to do', which is uNuN in Winnebago. (First person, incidentally, is >>ha?uN' - glottal stop, short stem vowel.) Another kind of exception seems >>to be initial long vowels, like aagi' 'be ready', or at least monosyllables >>like aa' 'arm'. >> >>I suppose working with Winnebago speakers it must be clear that their >>perception is that the h is organic. >> >>There are some interesting wrinkles to that situation, however. First, >>the first person does lose its h in contractions usually, e.g., per >>Lipkind ha < ha + ha. But notice that now we would expect to have haa >>with an epenthetic h before long a. In fact, checking the inflection of >>ha-verbs in Miner, I do find mostly haaCV'... first persons, e.g., hac^i' >>'to live on' vs. haac^i' 'I live on', but you have to be careful, because >>an underlying n-stem, for example, will behave differently, e.g., >>hanaNxguN' 'to listen' vs. hanaNaN'xguN 'I listen'. There is normally a >>shift of accent in an n-stem first person, e.g., naNaNs^e' 'to take away >>from' vs. naNaN's^e 'I take away form'. There is also haniN' 'to live' >>and 'I live', but Miner gives 'I live' as haaniN' in his first IJAL >>article on Winnebago accent, so the dictionary entry is probably a typo. >> >>Then consider the verb 'to eat' mentioned above. The wa-form had the >>first person waha'c^, not waa'c^. No loss of h here. Perhaps of interest >>here is that though Dhegiha simply lacks any initial in all the first >>person pronouns, e.g., OP a A1, aN P1, aN A12, Ioway-Otoe, a close >>relation of Winnebago, has ha A1, hiN P1, hiN A12. Neither the Dhegiha >>languages nor Ioway-Otoe have epenthetic haitch. (In fact, the closest >>case I can think of is in Shawnee.) So perhaps h-initials in first person >>pronominals have a sort of half-way status between organic and epenthetic. >> >>Another interesting h-context is the causative, which is a suffixed ha >>A1, ra A2, hi A3. The inflection of 'to kill', for example, is t?ee'hi >>'to kill' vs. t?ee'ha 'I killed'. Note also t?ee'wahi < t?ee'-wa-ha-hi 'I >>killed them'. But both h's are lost after a consonant, e.g., ceebi' 'to >>consume' vs. ceeba' 'I consume', but ceebwa'hi 'to consume something'. >>I'm not sure why the two different accentual patterns for monosyllabic >>root causatives. >> >>JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 10 01:52:36 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:52:36 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Vowel Length (Re: Helmbrecht Paper: Terminology 'modal prefix') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > "I suppose working with Winnebago speakers, it must be clear that > > their perception is that the h is organic." > > What exactly do you mean by 'organic' here, John? An underlying part of the stem, that has to be deleted in contexts where it doesn't appear, e.g., in waa- < wa-ha-, as opposed to an epenthetic consonant, added in some relatively superficial way. A lot of Siouan languages add an automatic ? before initial vowels, for example, while Winnebago seems (almost) to add an automatic h. (Except for the various exceptions mentioned, and perhas others I haven't noticed.) JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 10 04:10:28 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:10:28 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- In-Reply-To: <3D2B16D4.FB645EEF@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > ... What I know from research within the field of grammaticalization > is that third person pronouns mostly derive etymologically form > demonstrative pronouns, but may also occasionally go back to nominal > sources designating general concepts such as THING, PERSON etc. These > may be also the source for indefinite pronouns such as something, > somebody etc. ... This is very reasonable and likely, of course, and something of this sort may well provide the ultimate explanation for wa- 'something' and for wa- 'third person plural'. It's just that the particular Winnebago form in question (waz^aN') doesn't work out as an explanation. > There are only a few cases - as far as I found out - where wa- is indeed > used with transitive verbs as a true intransitivizer. Such an example is > the case ru?c 'to eat sth' which happened to be discussed in some of the > list contributions. Here, the wa- prefix seems to fill the P slot of the > verb without allowing a free P NP, i.e. there is no anaphoric agreement > with the NP referring to the food to be eaten. I give the relevant > examples in (2a-b). I haven't really looked at the issue of the productivity of wa- in various capacities, though I have the impression that wa- as a detransitivizer, as it were, of transitives is absolutely productive in, say, Omaha-Ponca. Wa-forms are rather rare in dicitonaries, however, since they tend to occur only in cases where the wa-form has something special about its meaning or where the verb is salient (like 'eat') but the difference between the unmarked and derived forms is obscure in the English gloss (both waru'c^ and ru'c being essentially 'eat', for example). Wa-forms are also found in dictionaries in the case Johannes mentions later, where the wa- is a fixed part of the stem. > b) wa-ruc^-n?Nk-s^aNaN > ?-eat-prog(sitting)-DECL > He is eating (sitting). This example supports the contention that the stem is short, since accent is found on the enclitic positional. > ... The war?c^case suggests that the P participant is put back > from syntax (case frame) to the lexical meaning of the word. Other verbs > such as woor?k (< wa+hor?k) 'to tell stories (etym. 'to tell them' ?)' > and wooh? (< wa+hoh?) 'to win (etym. 'to defeat them' ?)' work very > similar. Although glosses like 'to tell things' or 'to defeat someone' also work. Of course the ease with which such translations grade into each other is part of the hypothesis that wa- 'third person plural object' derives from wa- 'indefinite object'. On the other hand, Blair's mention of pa- vs. wi- in Catawba left me with a sudden started realization that the two senses might just as easily be equally old and of independent origin. > The next piece in the mosaic of wa- is the fact that wa- productively > derives nouns (or other verbs) from intransitive verbs only to a very > limited degree. E.g. the verb s^is^re 'to be broken, to break (intr)' is > not possible with wa-. This is the sort of priceless observation that comes out of fieldwork as opposed to pondering hapax legomena in sparse records. I do have the impression that wa- plus intransitive forms are scarecer in Omaha-Ponca than wa- + transitive forms, and more generally lexicalized. > There are not so many cases in the Hocank lexicon (cf. Zep's lexicon) > where an stativ intransitive verb takes wa- to recieve a nominal > meaning. An example in this direction is wa-c^?k 'young person, > virgin' (< wa- + ce?k 'new'). Lipkind gives other examples, but they > are not contained in the lexical sources available for Hocank (which I > consider a bad sign for the correctness of his examples). It would be my inclination to assume that the examples were valid, and came from his fieldwork, even if there were not attested elsewhere. If there were a pattern of rejecting his exx. by speakers working with later workers one might wonder. > In the vast majority of cases, wa- is restricted to the P slot in the > case frame of a tr. verb. This result is significant because it > clarifies to some extent the quite general assumption that wa- is > simply a valence reducing affix or something of that sort. Generally, > it does not reduce the valence of an intransitive verb and it is > certainly not the case that wa- is a productive means to derive nouns > from intransitive verbs. I do wonder about the wa-intransitives in Dhegiha. For example, OP wa...khega 'be sick'. We could argue that the wa is just an arbitrary formant on the verb, but this seems to me to beg the question, especially when comparison with Osage hu...hega 'be sick' suggests that wa in the OP form is analogous to the incorporated hu (probably 'limb') in the Osage form. It's possible the roots khega and hega are unconnected, but I suspect khega s some sort of dative of hega, historically speaking. > Now, the reason why I had to discuss the wa- forms in my paper was the > claim by Lipkind that wa- is a nominalizing affix. The problem with this > claim is that many of the proposed nominalization in the lexicon can be > used also as verbs, some are, however, lexicalized in a nominal meaning, > ... I agree that the evidence that wa-forms can be used as verbs dismisses the notion that wa- is essentially nominalizing. In fact, I doubt it is even really nominalizing in those wa-stative forms like wac^e'k 'ypoung person, virgin', though I haven't a ready analysis of what it actually is, other than a sort of pseudo-nominal 'something' incorporated into the stem. Wa- is present with various apparently nominal forms, but I think it is something of an associative relationship, rather than a causal ones. In the same way doctors are often around just before people die, for example. Again it's very useful to find that some locatives underlying wa-locative-root formations are considered non-forms by Winnebago speakers. It is sort of an open question to what extent things like wa- or locatives, or datives, etc., are productive in particular Siouan languages (or generally). JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jul 12 15:50:59 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:50:59 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. Bruce > > 'To be merciful; to pity' is dha?e=...dhe (a causative). > > I looked for a cognate in Dakotan, and found only yak?e 'wolf', which > matches dha?e in form, but not very well in meaning. I believe that > cognates of *rak?e=...re are widespread in Dhegiha. I supposed it might > be *rax?e=...re - I'd have to check the Quapaw form. The rest merge *x? > and *k? as k?, which becomes ? in OP. . > > JEK > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 14 04:30:57 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:30:57 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D2F08F3.4976.13BB9E8@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a. I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the flesh'. This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a). The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or one of those ablauting nouns. This is actually saying the same thing, with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon. Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a. Miner gives for Winnebago gis^ere'k 'have hurt feelings' (gi- cf. Dakotan ka-, not ki-), hu'us^erek ~ huus^e'rek 'bone' (huu 'limb', maybe originally 'severed limb'?). He gives se'rek 'be long and thin', as in maNaNse'reserek 'cut long, but thinner than maNaNse'reserec^', or c^aas^'e huNse'rek 'collar bone' (c^aas^e' 'neck', huNs'erek sic for huus[^]e'rek?). I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth; a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago forms, or OP ma[a]=). I guess that's not very likely, since there's already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental. (Is the instrumental maya-?) The mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan, though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally). If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to resolve obscurities. True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse! JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 14 04:38:17 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:38:17 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. Correction: > Buechel also gives mas^le [correct this to ma'yas^le, my error] and > ma'yac^a [added accent]. From rwd0002 at unt.edu Sun Jul 14 14:33:17 2002 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:33:17 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. > Greetings to all Siouanists from Madras, India: Here are my two rupees on the Athabaskan connection: There is in Navajo, Western Apache, Chiricahua, and Mescalero, at least, a stem ma', mba' or ba' referring to foxes and coyotes. This is similar to the ma- of mayasleca; but I think it is coincidence. Why would the Lakhota word borrow an Athabaskan term and compound that with something that, as JEK pointed out, looks very Dakotan? Not likely. Note also that the ma', mba', ba' thing occurs in other languages of the Southwest and is probably onomatopoeic, imitating the sound a coyote makes. Willem de Reuse From shanwest at uvic.ca Sun Jul 14 18:36:00 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:36:00 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > Koontz John E > Sent: July 13, 2002 9:31 PM > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. > > Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a. > > I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the > flesh'. This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from > ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a). The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or > one of those ablauting nouns. This is actually saying the same thing, > with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon. > > Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a. I checked Riggs for Dakota too. sde'-c^a sends you to kasdec^a, which means "to split, as wood with an ax". I also happened to look up kas^dec^a which he lists as a variant of kasdec^a. Ya-sde-c^a is listed as "to split with the teeth", ya- being the instrumental 'with the teeth'. There is no entry for mayas^dec^a or mayasdec^a. ---> > I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth; > a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is > a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago > forms, or OP ma[a]=). I guess that's not very likely, since there's > already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental. (Is the instrumental maya-?) The > mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan, > though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka > suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally). > > If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of > looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to > resolve obscurities. True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by > looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse! Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or, as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark, but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. Next time I talk to any Nakota speakers, I'll ask about this term. I don't seem to have it in my notes. Shannon From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jul 14 21:52:02 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:52:02 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: I've been reading with interest the postings on WI wa- since my earlier note, but I was in Oklahoma and didn't have time to reply. Probably most of what can be said has been said, so I only have a few points. I don't see a difference between treating wa- in terms of voice (transitivity) or aktionsart, which is simply a name for semantic aspect, unless one or the other clarifies 100% of the cases. And I don't see ANY single category doing that successfully. > I dared to produce and to repeat (Lipkind) some speculations on the origin of wa- .... Wherever wa- comes from, it has been there for several millennia. It is found with a similar, if not identical, function (more likely, functionS) in every Siouan language. That, plus the fact that WI 'something' seems to lack cognates elsewhere makes grammaticalization essentially unprovable at this point. Also, evidence strongly suggests that there have been several "waves" of wa-'s. The initial consonant clusters beginning with a labial that are frequent in languages like Dakota certainly appear to go back to *w-C clusters. These include bl-, mn-, pt-, ps-, ph-, p$-. The b/m/p are reflexes of wV- prefixes that have undergone syncope. The first person sg. prefix allomorphs show that these sound changes affected wa- sequences from more than one source. So, if you want to track the grammatical use(s) of *wa- over a number of centuries, all you have to do is look at nouns and verbs beginning with these sequences in the modern languages (those that haven't simplified the clusters). Expect to find instances of "layering", i.e., wa-bl- words. But of course we should also expect to find that the functions of wa- have changed in the meantime. > Each transitive verb in Hocank may take wa- indicating a third person plural, ... the P NP is optional.... I found this interesting. I don't remember any cases in my Kaw data of the wa- being used with a nominal object or patient present in the clause. If this is possible, then the analysis of wa- as an intransitivizer is simply wrong, wouldn't you say? But if there are "other wa-s" that clearly do reduce valence, then I think we have more than one wa- prefix. Homophony (or long/short V near-homophony) could easily lead to "contamination" of one from the other and we might expect to find some overlap. I have a bit of a problem with discussion so far. We have sort of been treating "indefinite object" and "valence reducer" as alternative terms for the same sets of examples. These are really different concepts, and it would be nice to find syntactic evidence for one or the other. (Then there are the WI definite object wa-s also!) I think that even if wa- (or one of the wa-s) reduces valence, creating intransitive verbs, that we would translate the resultant expressions into English with a transitive but indefinite "something". We have to avoid translating Siouan into English and then analyzing the English! Mary Haas used to warn about this. My earlier attempt to make that point failed, I think. So to me, the fact that many of us find that a translation of wa- as 'something' or 'stuff' generally works, is irrelevant or even misleading. 'I ate something' and 'I ate stuff' are still transitive sentences. To speakers, they may be totally intransitive. How do we know which? >There are only a few cases - as far as I found out - where wa- is indeed used with transitive verbs as a true intransitivizer. This confirms my suspicion that wa- (if there is only one wa-) is derivational, not inflectional. > The next piece in the mosaic of wa- is the fact that wa- productively derives nouns (or other verbs) from intransitive verbs only to a very limited degree. More evidence for its derivational status. >These are some of the facts about wa- in Hocank. I do not really know what to do with them. Johannes has gone a lot farther toward explaining the facts than most of us! This has been a really interesting discussion and the problems have analogs in virtually every Siouan language. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jul 14 22:31:41 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:31:41 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't it? I guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan languages use a derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sun Jul 14 23:36:12 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:36:12 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: > Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't it? I > guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan languages use a > derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. I find it interesting that most Siouan languages don't have a totally separate word for 'coyote' as opposed to 'dog'. Does this mean that there isn't a clearly reconstructible Proto-Siouan word for 'coyote'? I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), they've have had to acquire words for the animal. As it turns out, most of the 'Central' languages use derivations of the Algonquian 'wolf' word, never the Algonquian 'dog' word. So Miami and Potawatomi use a formation that transparently means 'common wolf', and Shawnee uses the diminutive of the 'wolf' word to mean 'coyote'. Arapaho and Cheyenne, on the other hand, share a word which one of the two languages seems to have borrowed from the other. Ives Goddard, who spotted this, has pointed out that the forms would regularly reflect Proto- Algonquian */pa:xkahamwa/, which would mean 'the one that opens it by tool', but his position is that it's an innovation, and not a Proto-Algonquian name for the animal. Don't ask me why 'coyote' should be called 'the one that opens it by tool'. Do most Siouan languages have a separate 'wolf' word independent from their 'coyote'/'dog' word? *If* no clear Proto-Siouan word that unequivocally means 'coyote' can be reconstructed, then I guess that means that the Proto-Siouans didn't have them, and that either some Siouans moved into the range of them, or that coyotes themselves expanded their range (definitely known to have happened at least over the last couple centuries). Dave Costa From ishna00 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 15 02:15:36 2002 From: ishna00 at hotmail.com (Thode Charles) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:15:36 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: The Dakota word for coyote is "Mica" pronounced /mii-cha/ which differs from /shun-ka/ meaning 'dog' /shunk-tok-cha/ from 'shunka tokeca' is the word for wolf. Charles H. Thode ishnashunktokcha (lone wolf) >From: "David Costa" >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:36:12 -0700 > > > > Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't it? I > > guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan languages use a > > derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. > >I find it interesting that most Siouan languages don't have a totally >separate word for 'coyote' as opposed to 'dog'. Does this mean that there >isn't a clearly reconstructible Proto-Siouan word for 'coyote'? > >I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- >Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, >since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho >there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of >the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually >when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), they've have >had to acquire words for the animal. As it turns out, most of the 'Central' >languages use derivations of the Algonquian 'wolf' word, never the >Algonquian 'dog' word. So Miami and Potawatomi use a formation that >transparently means 'common wolf', and Shawnee uses the diminutive of the >'wolf' word to mean 'coyote'. > >Arapaho and Cheyenne, on the other hand, share a word which one of the two >languages seems to have borrowed from the other. Ives Goddard, who spotted >this, has pointed out that the forms would regularly reflect Proto- >Algonquian */pa:xkahamwa/, which would mean 'the one that opens it by tool', >but his position is that it's an innovation, and not a Proto-Algonquian name >for the animal. Don't ask me why 'coyote' should be called 'the one that >opens it by tool'. > >Do most Siouan languages have a separate 'wolf' word independent from their >'coyote'/'dog' word? *If* no clear Proto-Siouan word that unequivocally >means 'coyote' can be reconstructed, then I guess that means that the >Proto-Siouans didn't have them, and that either some Siouans moved into the >range of them, or that coyotes themselves expanded their range (definitely >known to have happened at least over the last couple centuries). > >Dave Costa _________________________________________________________________ ? ?? ???? ?? PC?? ? PC?? ??? ? ?? ????? ??, MSN ???? ?????. http://msn.webhard.co.kr From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:18:07 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:18:07 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the > teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or, > as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore > at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much > about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark, > but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. I came up with gash as a way to encode the notion of a lengthwise opening, which I think, all the forms considered, was the idea in the root. I hadn't thought of ma as the P1 marker, but I think that would be unparalleled in derivational patterns, and rather unusual typologically, too. I suppose the southern Athabascan and vicinity root might work, in spite of Willem's reservations, if 'mouth-split' part could be seen as having been added to distinguish one sort of ma from another. Goodness knows there are enough ma and magha, etc., roots in Siouan, but I'm not sure if the situation could actually produce confusion. Perhaps confusion isn't the only reason for adding distinguishing epithets. As far as evidence of mechanisms for borrowing, there are a certain number of Coyote stories known from Siouan contexts, though, of course, Coyote is not the central Trickster character in the Siouan literatures I know anything about. I suppose ma might just as readily be a Siouan root for what gets gashed or split. It might help to know more about the nomenclature and folklore of Coyote than I do. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:34:41 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:34:41 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- In-Reply-To: <00d901c22b84$b9e400c0$e2b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: As usual, Bob has a clarifying influence on things. It's true that we should be very careful about thinking of wa- detrans./indef. obj as 'stuff' or 'something' if it is detransivizing as opposed to an indefinite object, though the latter case seems to be essentially a term for 'stuff' or 'something'. I hadn't really noticed the inconsistency, perhaps because I was used to thinking of the detransitivizing as coming from the incorporation, as it were, of the 'something'. The issue I thought I was raising in regard to the idea that the 'something' might be somehow the head or focus of attention in the construction was whether the 'something; was specific or non-specific - a certain something or anything at al: a something the identity of which was known, or one the identity of which was irrelevant. On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > Each transitive verb in Hocank may take wa- > indicating a third person plural, ... the P NP is > optional.... > > I found this interesting. I don't remember any cases > in my Kaw data of the wa- being used with a nominal > object or patient present in the clause. If this is > possible, then the analysis of wa- as an > intransitivizer is simply wrong, wouldn't you say? Here I thought I had discerned that Johannes was referring to wa- in its capacity as a third person object pronominal - what he calls the definite wa- - and that could naturally occur with a nominal object, whereas the detransitivizing or indefinite wa- apparently does not. The first is found in Winnebago, Chiwere, and Dhegiha, and has a vicar in Dakotan in the form of wic^ha-, while the second is pan-Siouan. Bob, are you saying that third person object wa- doesn't co-occur with objects in Kaw, or that wa- detrans/indef doesn't? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:51:26 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:51:26 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <00fd01c22b86$3ad45080$e2b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > Referring to coyotes as 'slasher' smacks of taboo replacement, doesn't > it? I guess Crow borrows the term from Kiowa but most Siouan > languages use a derivation of *$uNke 'canid'. I asked Victor Golla about Athabascan coyote terms. His comment from a California perspective was that they were a mass of replacements not resembling the term in question. The Dakotan forms certainly look like replacements, right down to a certain variability in how to say them. As far as 'canid' replacement terms, the Omaha-Ponca term is mi'kkasi, which I had always thought might have something to do with mikka' 'raccon', but, since si is 'foot', that not only leaves us with something more or less obscure (to me anyway), but neglects the difference in accent. If, for the sake of argument, I match the mi' with the ma'- in Dakotan, an irregular, but not unprecedented match, the remainder -kkasi still isn't clear. But perhaps this is telling me that the whole term isn't native? There's certainly nothing wrong with the phonology per se. It's just that the pieces don't seem to support any reasonably etymology within my admittedly shallow and non-native grasp of the language. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 05:59:59 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:59:59 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Thode Charles wrote: > The Dakota word for coyote is "Mica" pronounced /mii-cha/ > which differs from /shun-ka/ meaning 'dog' > /shunk-tok-cha/ from 'shunka tokeca' is the word for wolf. This matches the Omaha-Ponca mi'kka part, if it's an aspirated c, since mi'kka implies Proto Mississippi Valley Siouan *mihka (or some obstruent + obstruent cluster like *pk instead of *hk). The *mihka possibility would regularly come out mic^ha in Dakotan, with preaspiration was converted to aspiration, and the kh was affricated after i. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 06:04:51 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:04:51 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes (fwd) Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 rwd0002 at unt.edu wrote: > Note also that the ma', mba', ba' thing occurs in other languages of > the Southwest and is probably onomatopoeic, imitating the sound a > coyote makes. When inveigling sheep? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 15 06:38:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:38:21 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > I find it interesting that most Siouan languages don't have a totally > separate word for 'coyote' as opposed to 'dog'. Does this mean that there > isn't a clearly reconstructible Proto-Siouan word for 'coyote'? I'd say not, and that it wasn't surprising for the same reason that Algonquian lacks one. Not to mention any issue of avoidance. (OK, that was an accident!) On the other hand, there's not really any reconstructable term for 'wolf' distinct from 'dog' (and often, now, 'horse'). Terms for 'wolf' often come down to 'big canid' or 'wild canid'. Aside: Siouan languages are really good at making do with a rather minimal set of short noun roots and somewhat more numerous short verb roots, put to work on building a larger working vocabulary with the aid of intensive nominalization and/or compounding. This is why Proto-Siouanists end up with long lists of monosyllabic and bisyllabic roots combined with a handful of very busy verb affixes and enclitics. Even the bisyllabic roots are in many cases effectively monosyllabic, as the second syllable vowel seems to be almost an independent element saying 'it's a root'. Sometimes you get a glimmering of the processes that collapsed longer original forms into the attested monosyllables and bisyllables, and then you realize that the apocopated first syllable is just a prefix wa- anyway, or that the second syllable initial consonants of some verb roots show signs of being old d4erivational morphology, etc. > So Miami and Potawatomi use a formation that transparently means > 'common wolf', ... A verb meaning 'common' (or 'garden variety') is a common derivational element in Mississippi Valley Siouan, too. For example, 'common whiteman' = 'French' or 'common person' = 'Indian'. A similar element is 'very, true', e.g., 'true deer' = 'deer'. > Arapaho and Cheyenne, on the other hand, share a word ... Don't ask me > why 'coyote' should be called 'the one that opens it by tool'. I suspect someone with a knowledge of Coyote and/or Trickster stories could fathom this trope (or ken this kenning?). > Do most Siouan languages have a separate 'wolf' word independent from their > 'coyote'/'dog' word? *If* no clear Proto-Siouan word that unequivocally > means 'coyote' can be reconstructed, then I guess that means that the > Proto-Siouans didn't have them, and that either some Siouans moved into the > range of them, or that coyotes themselves expanded their range (definitely > known to have happened at least over the last couple centuries). I think I've answered the 'wolf' question, though I think that at least thw Crow-Hidtsa and Mandan people would have been in coyote territory for a long time (at least a 1000 years). I believe the eastward spread of the coyote is supposed to be connected with the demise of the wolf. Maybe the spread of the open environment of farmlands amnd suburbs is also relevant. That's supposed to explain the eastward spread of the red fox along with the present superabundance of genus Odocoileus deer. Archaeologists think Native Americans of the Midwestern area preferred the prairie and forest/prairie interface to forest and increased prairie by systematically burning over open areas to kill saplings, but Euroamerican farming and now suburbanization produces the same effect on a larger scale. Coyotes, foxes, and whitetails, among others (robins, cottontails), are pretty happy with small farms or suburbs full of open space. JEK From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 15 12:22:26 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:22:26 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the Potawatomi and Mascouten. Michael McCafferty From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Mon Jul 15 14:48:35 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:48:35 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: Bob wrote: > So to me, the fact that many of us find that a translation of wa- as 'something' or 'stuff' generally works, is irrelevant or even misleading. 'I ate something' and 'I ate stuff' are still transitive sentences. To speakers, they may be totally intransitive. How do we know which? ... But even in English (or better, in Montague grammar) the expression "eat-something" or "eat-stuff" is intransitive. You can't eat-stuff an apple. A transitive verb plus an object makes an intransitive expression. In this sense what we've been calling indefinite object and detransitivizer or valence reducer are in fact the same. How do we know whether something is actually intransitive? See whether it can take an(other) object. But I do agree that all the complex ins and outs of the various usages of wa- shouldn't be glossed over or trivialized, and that translation equivalents aren't necessarily relevant. Catherine From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Jul 15 16:16:27 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:16:27 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. David > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: >> >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > Michael McCafferty > > From boris at terracom.net Mon Jul 15 17:37:30 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:37:30 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Just an aside, in Kickapoo Voorhis indicates 'wolf' as "mahweea" and 'dog' as "anemwa". Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when > being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the > Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th > century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could > have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But > maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't > have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo > use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their > familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the > extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting > a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. > > David > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > >> > >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 15 18:08:29 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:08:29 +0100 Subject: coyotes etc Message-ID: Dear All: Regarding dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. there's Allan Taylor's note about dogs and wolves and metaphotical extensions for theor names in a note in IJAL in 1985 in the 'Hamp Festshcrift'. In parts of the Pacific Northwest it was considered ill luck to mention the creature at certain times of the year. Maybe this practice of avoidance was also found in part of the Plains and would explain the use of a noa term such as 'slasher' for it. Anthony Grant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 15 18:40:20 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:40:20 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the past couple of decades archaeologists have placed the Kickapoo-Sauk-Fox-Mascouten in late prehistory along the southern shores of Lake Erie, and then a later move into the eastern and southern Michigan soon before the curtain call. This would explain why that language did not have an inherent term for 'coyote'. On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when > being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the > Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th > century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could > have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But > maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't > have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo > use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their > familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the > extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting > a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. > > David > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > >> > >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 15 18:52:57 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:52:57 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: See: Stothers, David M. The Michigan Owasco and Iroquois Co-Tradition: Late Woodland Conflict, Conquest, and Cultural Realignment in the Western and Lower Great Lakes. Northeast Anthropology 49 (1995): 5-41. ____. Late Woodland Models for Cultural Development in Southern Michigan. In John R. Halsey, ed., Retrieving Michigans Buried Past, the Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 64. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1999. On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > In the past couple of decades archaeologists have placed the > Kickapoo-Sauk-Fox-Mascouten in late prehistory along the southern shores > of Lake Erie, and then a later move into the eastern and southern > Michigan soon before the curtain call. This would explain why that > language did not have an inherent term for 'coyote'. > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > > True, when I said that business about acquiring words for 'coyote' when > > being forced into Kansas or Oklahoma, it overlooked the fact that the > > Illinois already had the 'common wolf/ordinary wolf' word by the late 17th > > century. And there's also the possibility that the Woodlands groups could > > have known about coyotes from trips out onto the Plains to hunt bison. But > > maybe this wasn't all that common, since I'm told Fox and Kickapoo don't > > have any particular word for 'coyote'. I think I was told that the Kickapoo > > use the same word as for 'wolf', which would make sense, since their > > familiarity with the coyote would have come at roughly the same time as the > > extinction of the wolf over most of the Lower 48. Just a matter of shifting > > a word from one animal to the similar one that takes its place. > > > > David > > > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > >> > > >> I can at least add my take on how Algonquian handles this issue. Proto- > > >> Algonquian was pretty clearly NOT spoken in the geographic range of coyotes, > > >> since there's no reconstructible Proto-Algonquian word for the animal. (Tho > > >> there are words for 'wolf' and, especially, 'dog'.) Therefore, as some of > > >> the daughter languages have later moved into the range of coyotes (usually > > >> when the speakers were forced to move to Kansas or Oklahoma), > > > > > > Illinois speakers would have likely been in contact with the > > > prairie-dwelling coyote by ca. 1000 A.D. perhaps slightly before, a time > > > frame generally applicable to any Algonquian language that pushed south > > > and west into the prairies or had prairie connections such as the > > > Potawatomi and Mascouten. > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > 307 Memorial Hall > Indiana University > Bloomington, Indiana > 47405 > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > C.G. Jung > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > Rumi > > > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 16 03:35:39 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:35:39 -0500 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- Message-ID: > ... But even in English (or better, in Montague grammar) the expression "eat-something" or "eat-stuff" is intransitive. You can't eat-stuff an apple. A transitive verb plus an object makes an intransitive expression. Uh, no. Not in my vocabulary anyway. "Stuff" is a noun and the object of 'eat', even with a hyphen as I see it. Yes, I know I'm being a stick in the mud insisting on analyzing what's actually there, but I think it's best to assume that the Montague people were simply naive about the ways the world's languages can work. In English a verb may typically be either transitive or intransitive in many cases. 'Eat' and 'shoot' are good examples (Johannes pointed out that WI ruje means 'eat it', not 'eat'). In English we require no morphology in order to intransitivize; we just leave an object off and that's it. In Siouan, verbs that are inherently transitive, like 'eat', require a marker if the speaker uses them intransitively. That marker is wa-. Many languages are of this sort, and I have to believe that Montague grammarians simply were unaware of such superficial things about various American and African languages. > In this sense what we've been calling indefinite object and detransitivizer or valence reducer are in fact the same. I agree that some of the problem revolves around terminology. But I feel that for Siouan speakers it IS one or the other. Instances of incorporation (like "eat-stuff", as in *"eat-stuff an apple")are normally pre-posed to their verbs, as in "babysit", and the perfectly acceptable "I babysat John's little brother." Or the even more generic "I babysat John's new Toyota." I guess I don't feel we're justified in assuming that an invisible, imaginary superstructure of 'eat' in English includes 'stuff' without better evidence. > How do we know whether something is actually intransitive? See whether it can take an(other) object. Yes indeed, I think I mentioned how peculiar it seemed to me that verbs with intransitivizing wa- could take an overt (and definite yet) object in WI. If that's the case, then either: (a) Wa- is NOT a valence reducer or intransitivizer, or, (b) There is more than one wa-, and we're dealing with homophony, not polysemy. Taka you choice. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 06:11:25 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:11:25 -0600 Subject: Little People Message-ID: Assuming that the coyotes are now quiet - which they are not; I hear them nightly from my living room yipping up a storm in the open space - is anyone interested in discussing terms for 'the little people'? I was just looking some up, and found them about as opaque a lot of terms as any I've seen. The simplest was OP ni'da, apparently a simple root, which is defined in passing in Fletcher & LaFlesche as 'imp', but in Osage refers to 'elephant' by way of use to refer to the beast implied by the bones often found sticking out of banks. Peter LeClaire, one of Howard's sources on Ponca culture, mentions mong-thu-jah-the-gah 'In the mountain {the Big Horns?} the dwarves [are] found and dreaded as it [they?] leads them away at nights and last [they are ensorceled] until morning." The best I could make of that was maN=dhaN uj^aN=dhe egaN meaning, perhaps, 'like beautifully made arrowheads'. Mrs. Stabler offers niashiNga nushiaha, in which I am totally baffled by nushiaha. Then we have those Ioway-Otoe forms that were mentioned once already, I think: hompathroji and humpathroxje, from Jimm Good Tracks. JEK From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 16 10:21:58 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:21:58 -0400 Subject: Little People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: nushiaha means 'short' in Omaha. My dog is nushiaha. -Ardis On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > Assuming that the coyotes are now quiet - which they are not; I hear them > nightly from my living room yipping up a storm in the open space - is > anyone interested in discussing terms for 'the little people'? I was just > looking some up, and found them about as opaque a lot of terms as any I've > seen. > > The simplest was OP ni'da, apparently a simple root, which is defined in > passing in Fletcher & LaFlesche as 'imp', but in Osage refers to > 'elephant' by way of use to refer to the beast implied by the bones often > found sticking out of banks. > > Peter LeClaire, one of Howard's sources on Ponca culture, mentions > mong-thu-jah-the-gah 'In the mountain {the Big Horns?} the dwarves [are] > found and dreaded as it [they?] leads them away at nights and last [they > are ensorceled] until morning." The best I could make of that was > maN=dhaN uj^aN=dhe egaN meaning, perhaps, 'like beautifully made > arrowheads'. > > Mrs. Stabler offers niashiNga nushiaha, in which I am totally baffled by > nushiaha. > > Then we have those Ioway-Otoe forms that were mentioned once already, I > think: hompathroji and humpathroxje, from Jimm Good Tracks. > > JEK > > > From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 16 11:46:46 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:46:46 -0400 Subject: Helmbrecht Paper - Status of wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to put 2 more cents in about this issue on 2 fronts. 1. Stuff vs. detransitivizer I am opposed to stuff being used here. I think it is a convenient calc based on English centered translation. That is: We want a one to one correspondence between English and Omaha morphemes so adding stuff give equality: wa-bth-atHe stuff-I-eat Detransitivizer isn't a very good English morpheme so it leaves us a bit empty. However, this is because English activities which are detransitivized ( from active accomplishments) are not marked with a morpheme. They are consistently marked by a LAck of object instead. Translation & elicitation make this especially clear. If you asked for 'I eat stuff' I BET you'd get 'AzhithoNthoN bthatHe' (I eat various-things). TO get 'wabthatHE' we ask 'how do you say 'I am eating.' Native speakers translate 'wabthatHe' as 'I am eating' if you ask. When asking for activities naturally, we don't try to add stuff. It is only when we try to do the one to one correspondance that we pop it in. THus, 'wa' does not LITERALLY mean stuff (azhithoNthoN), it means the thing added to a verb which detransitivizes or makes an accomplishment into an activity. 2. Aksionsart vs. Detransitivizer I really am less concerned with this issue as both describe the process going on. But I am convinced aksionsart is better for a number of reasons. (The best is last, sorry, it's hard to edit in PINE,unix) a. Activities and (active) accomplishments regularly correspond cross-linguistically, but I guess you could say transitives and dtransitivized transitives correspond regularly cross-linguistically? Perhaps it's two sides of a similar coin but the result of detransitivization is an intransitive, right? This is a more general term than activity (as is transitive vs. active accomplishment) and thus describes the results less precisely. You could fix this by calling it a detransitive, but this would be creating (at least Trask doesn't have such a term). Even then, a detransitive does not seem so specific activity. Activity predicts semantic structure. To convince me detransitive is better, I'd need to find a detransitive that uses 'wa' and is not an activity. I have no examples of this. b. The class of verbs which takes part in this alternation is not an open set and tends to be fairly consistent cross-linguistically. Not all transitives can take wa and detransitivize but all active accomplishments can. The verbs that undergo this are usually verbs of creation and consumption (VValin and LPolla). For example: I know the answer (transitive) and I know (intransitive) do NOT vary for 'wa.' Instead you get 'e' added to the verb for the intransitive (that is , the 'it' of I know it is added). That's because 'know' is a state not an accomplishment. The 'wa' doesn't detransitivize all the time. Only with active accomplishment-activity correspondences. c. I have more to add but maybe only if someone wants the details personally as I can get lengthy. Regards, Ardis On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > ... But even in English (or better, in Montague grammar) the expression > "eat-something" or "eat-stuff" is intransitive. You can't eat-stuff an > apple. A transitive verb plus an object makes an intransitive > expression. > > Uh, no. Not in my vocabulary anyway. "Stuff" is a noun and the object of > 'eat', even with a hyphen as I see it. Yes, I know I'm being a stick in the > mud insisting on analyzing what's actually there, but I think it's best to > assume that the Montague people were simply naive about the ways the world's > languages can work. In English a verb may typically be either transitive or > intransitive in many cases. 'Eat' and 'shoot' are good examples (Johannes > pointed out that WI ruje means 'eat it', not 'eat'). In English we require > no morphology in order to intransitivize; we just leave an object off and > that's it. In Siouan, verbs that are inherently transitive, like 'eat', > require a marker if the speaker uses them intransitively. That marker is > wa-. Many languages are of this sort, and I have to believe that Montague > grammarians simply were unaware of such superficial things about various > American and African languages. > > > In this sense what we've been calling indefinite object and > detransitivizer or valence reducer are in fact the same. > > I agree that some of the problem revolves around terminology. But I feel > that for Siouan speakers it IS one or the other. > > Instances of incorporation (like "eat-stuff", as in *"eat-stuff an > apple")are normally pre-posed to their verbs, as in "babysit", and the > perfectly acceptable "I babysat John's little brother." Or the even more > generic "I babysat John's new Toyota." I guess I don't feel we're justified > in assuming that an invisible, imaginary superstructure of 'eat' in English > includes 'stuff' without better evidence. > > > How do we know whether something is actually intransitive? See whether it > can take an(other) object. > > Yes indeed, I think I mentioned how peculiar it seemed to me that verbs with > intransitivizing wa- could take an overt (and definite yet) object in WI. > If that's the case, then either: > > (a) Wa- is NOT a valence reducer or intransitivizer, or, > > (b) There is more than one wa-, and we're dealing with homophony, not > polysemy. > > Taka you choice. > > Bob > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 16 13:20:03 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:20:03 -0500 Subject: Little People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > Assuming that the coyotes are now quiet - which they are not; I hear them > nightly from my living room yipping up a storm in the open space - is > anyone interested in discussing terms for 'the little people'? I was just > looking some up, and found them about as opaque a lot of terms as any I've > seen. > > > Peter LeClaire, one of Howard's sources on Ponca culture, mentions > mong-thu-jah-the-gah 'In the mountain {the Big Horns?} the dwarves [are] > found and dreaded as it [they?] leads them away at nights and last [they > are ensorceled] until morning." The best I could make of that was > maN=dhaN uj^aN=dhe egaN meaning, perhaps, 'like beautifully made > arrowheads'. I don't know if this is a thread, John, but the Christianized Chiracahua Apache children I used to teach in New Mexico referred to arrowheads as coming from the devil's workshop, as evil things. I was amazed. Michael McCafferty From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 14:20:57 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:20:57 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for all the suggestions. The connection to yaslec^a 'to split with the teeth' did occur to me, but it would seem to be applicable to almost any ravenous kind of beast. I must go back and check again on my source. I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. It just struck me as an odd name in view of the usually clear meanings of such things as heciNs^kayapi 'mountain sheep' (the one whose horns are used to make spoons) an nig^e saXla 'antelope' (one with the off-white stomach). Perhaps I shouldn't expect so much Bruce On 14 Jul 2002, at 11:36, Shannon West wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > Koontz John E > > Sent: July 13, 2002 9:31 PM > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > > > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote > > > yas^le or mayas^leca. It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most > > > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in > > > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an > > > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing. > > > > Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a. > > > > I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the > > flesh'. This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from > > ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a). The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or > > one of those ablauting nouns. This is actually saying the same thing, > > with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon. > > > > Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a. > > I checked Riggs for Dakota too. sde'-c^a sends you to kasdec^a, which means > "to split, as wood with an ax". I also happened to look up kas^dec^a which > he lists as a variant of kasdec^a. Ya-sde-c^a is listed as "to split with > the teeth", ya- being the instrumental 'with the teeth'. There is no entry > for mayas^dec^a or mayasdec^a. > > ---> > > I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth; > > a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is > > a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago > > forms, or OP ma[a]=). I guess that's not very likely, since there's > > already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental. (Is the instrumental maya-?) The > > mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan, > > though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka > > suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally). > > > > If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of > > looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to > > resolve obscurities. True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by > > looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse! > > Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the > teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or, > as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore > at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much > about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark, > but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. > > Next time I talk to any Nakota speakers, I'll ask about this term. I don't > seem to have it in my notes. > > Shannon > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 14:34:57 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:34:57 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes mica is interesting too. Again it doesn't seem to be transparent as a derivation. While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word mnaja (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. Being English I don't know what a wolverine is except remembering it as an epithet for a Michigan Regiment in the Civil war led by General Custer played by Errol Flynn. I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. Buechel doesn't have it and I managed to miss entering it in my dictionary. Do other Lakotanists know of this word or any cognates? Do Lakota speakers recognize it as a Lakota word? Bruce On 14 Jul 2002, at 21:15, Thode Charles wrote: > The Dakota word for coyote is "Mica" pronounced /mii-cha/ > which differs from /shun-ka/ meaning 'dog' > /shunk-tok-cha/ from 'shunka tokeca' is the word for wolf. > > Charles H. Thode > ishnashunktokcha (lone wolf) > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 16 15:32:25 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:32:25 -0500 Subject: coyotes Message-ID: > Yes mica is interesting too. The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. I don't know of -mikka is a noun or adjectival verb stem. Actually, in Kaw the coyote is more commonly a diminutive: $oNmikkase-hinga, with the noun alone more commonly 'wolf', but as wolves are no longer present in the southern plains, the term now is/was used for coyote. I've never run across a term for Wolverine. It's a northern animal, and I doubt there were distinct terms for it in Dhegiha languages. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 15:47:51 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:47:51 -0700 Subject: coyotes Message-ID: So, is mikka/micha perhaps the reconstructible Mississippi Valley Siouan name for the coyote? ---------- >From: "Rankin, Robert L" >To: "'siouan at lists.colorado.edu '" >Subject: RE: coyotes >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 8:32 am > > >> Yes mica is interesting too. > > The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo > replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" > 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. I don't > know if -mikka is a noun or adjectival verb stem. Actually, in Kaw the > coyote is more commonly a diminutive: $oNmikkase-hinga, with the noun alone > more commonly 'wolf', but as wolves are no longer present in the southern > plains, the term now is/was used for coyote. > > I've never run across a term for Wolverine. It's a northern animal, and I > doubt there were distinct terms for it in Dhegiha languages. > > Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 15:56:49 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:56:49 -0600 Subject: Little People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I don't know if this is a thread, John, but the Christianized Chiracahua > Apache children I used to teach in New Mexico referred to arrowheads > as coming from the devil's workshop, as evil things. I was amazed. I wonder if this is a piece with the northern Plains conception that arrowheads were created by Trickster? I think conflict between groups is considered to be one of his presents, too. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:00:43 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:00:43 -0600 Subject: coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > So, is mikka/micha perhaps the reconstructible Mississippi Valley Siouan > name for the coyote? Possibly, though I don't know at the moment if it's attested in Winnebago and Ioway-Otoe. The nearly homophonous raccoon term is. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:01:45 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:01:45 -0600 Subject: coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo > replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" > 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. What do you make of the -se, which matches the -si in Omaha-Ponca? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:13:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:13:27 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D343D21.13090.83D712@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word > mnaja (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. Being English I don't know what > a wolverine is except remembering it as an epithet for a Michigan > Regiment in the Civil war led by General Custer played by Errol > Flynn. I thought Custer was in the regular army in the cavalry? Michigan is called the Wolverine State, I think. > I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. A wolverine is to a marten as a tank is to a sportscar, though I'm not sure whether this conception would meet with the approval of the taxonomists. In northern North America there's an intermediate of sorts, a large, darkish martern called variously a fisher or a pekan, or sometimes, a cat. I think that the French in particular called things like raccoons, fishers, and skunks chats. Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to underlie the 'wild cat' conception in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' that I think might refer to a skunk or a fisher or maybe a wolverine - perhaps one of the Missouria names? I've forgotten the actual name, too, awkwardly enough. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 16:10:50 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:10:50 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes I've always thought that Lakota looks suspiciously like a language which has recently been agglutinated from an earlier monsyllabic isolating stage, almost like a language that has been recently 'reworked'. It probably isn't that simple, but it has that look about it. Bruce On 15 Jul 2002, at 0:38, Koontz John E wrote: > > Aside: Siouan languages are really good at making do with a rather > minimal set of short noun roots and somewhat more numerous short verb > roots, put to work on building a larger working vocabulary with the aid of > intensive nominalization and/or compounding. This is why Proto-Siouanists > end up with long lists of monosyllabic and bisyllabic roots combined with > a handful of very busy verb affixes and enclitics. Even the bisyllabic > roots are in many cases effectively monosyllabic, as the second syllable > vowel seems to be almost an independent element saying 'it's a root'. > Sometimes you get a glimmering of the processes that collapsed longer > original forms into the attested monosyllables and bisyllables, and then > you realize that the apocopated first syllable is just a prefix wa- > anyway, or that the second syllable initial consonants of some verb roots > show signs of being old d4erivational morphology, etc. From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue Jul 16 16:18:19 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:18:19 -0500 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: Ok, here's another question sparked off by the recent IJAL article. This one is really totally irrelevant to Johannes' point, just something he mentioned in passing -- I almost hesitate to bring it up for fear it'll be seen as an unfair criticism of the article. So Johannes, if you're reading this, it's really just a question! I was interested in the brief discussion of relative clauses starting on p. 11, and especially the structure (22) which shows the Hocank relative clause as having an external head: N-head [null relativizer Predicate-Determiner] with the part in [...] being the relative clause. This is pretty surprising for a Siouan language -- relative clauses in Lakota, Crow, Hidatsa, Omaha are internal-headed. (Though of course it's possible to have both internal and external headed relatives in the same family, or even in the same language... as far as I know no Siouan language has been shown to have clearly external-headed relatives.) So it would be really interesting if Hocank does have this structure. What I'm wondering is -- did Helmbrecht just assume the external-head structure, or is there actually evidence for it in Hocank? The few examples given are inconclusive; none of them have more than one constituent besides the predicate, so it's not possible to distinguish N [ predicate] from [N predicate]. What happens if instead of just "the meat I cooked" (23b) we have "the meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked yesterday" -- does "meat" necessarily come at the beginning, or can you have orders like [my mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat I-cooked determiner] where "meat" is a clearly internal head? If "meat" has to be first, it would argue for the external-head structure. One indication in (23b) that the head is actually external might be the definite determiner on "meat", given the apparently universal fact that internal heads of RCs must be indefinite (Williamson's indefiniteness restriction).... The indefiniteness restriction is robust enough and has enough raison d'etre -- required to allow operator binding to work right, etc. -- that I'd take it seriously as an argument. Any thoughts? Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 16:24:23 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:24:23 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D3439D9.77.77076E@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, or some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date properly. There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and Siouan, the 'metal' term. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 16:26:49 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:26:49 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think in the film it was a cavalry regiment from Michigan nicknamed 'the wolverines'. Now I know why. It strikes me taht the word as used by Bushotter in Lakota is therefore quite unusual. It is not mentioned at all by Deloria Bruce On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:13, Koontz John E wrote: > I thought Custer was in the regular army in the cavalry? Michigan is > called the Wolverine State, I think. > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jul 16 16:30:02 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:30:02 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is the Avonlea culture? Bruce On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:24, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. > > Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, or > some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish > encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The > Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic > assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the > Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to > Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of > the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. > The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. > > The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early > Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota > sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date properly. > There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and Siouan, > the 'metal' term. > > JEK > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 16:58:16 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:58:16 -0700 Subject: black cats and rats de bois Message-ID: > A wolverine is to a marten as a tank is to a sportscar, though I'm not sure > whether this conception would meet with the approval of the taxonomists. In > northern North America there's an intermediate of sorts, a large, darkish > marten called variously a fisher or a pekan, or sometimes, a cat. Actually, 'fisher' is the standard modern English name. The main vernacular English name I'm aware of is 'black cat' (accent on 'black', like a compound). 'Pekan' is borrowed from French, which they appear to have gotten from some northern New England Algonquian language (cf. Micmac /pqamk/, Maliseet /p at k@mk/, Penobscot /pa'kamke/; '@' = schwa). That's not the reconstructible Proto-Algonquian name for the animal, though (PA */wecye:ka/). The marten and fisher are indeed different animals, tho the French missionaries sometimes merge them. > I think that the French in particular called things like raccoons, fishers, > and skunks chats. In my experience, the French 'Algonquianist missionaries' called the raccoon 'chat sauvage', and the fisher 'pecan'. They might have been more variable about skunks, tho the Illinois missionaries at least called them 'be(s)te puante'. They tended to call the possum 'rat de bois'. Can't recall at the moment what they called the wolverine, but that's found in Europe as well. All in all, the French terms for animals that weren't found in Europe actually seem to be pretty consistent. > Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to underlie the 'wild cat' conception > in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' > that I think might refer to a skunk or a fisher If they got the species identification correct (a big if), it's the fisher. If Lewis and Clark didn't call skunks skunks (a term that's been used in English a LONG time) they probably would have called it 'pole cat'. That's only the striped skunk, tho, the spotted skunk is called the 'civet cat' by almost everyone who knows about them. Dave From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:02:03 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:02:03 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Bruce The Avonlea complex was centered in southern Saskatchewan, also occurs in Alberta, and western Manitoba, with a probability of northern North Dakota. Websites on the Avonlea complex are: http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/wo odland/avonlea.html http://www.heritage-online.net/Timeline/avonlea.htm Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the wolverine occurred as far south as 37?N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), also I believe that the wolverine was encountered by Lewis and Clark on their trip. Just imagine a 50-100kg animal, as fast as a cat but with the temper of a cranky badger. Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:30 AM Subject: RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is > the Avonlea culture? > Bruce > On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:24, Koontz John E wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > > > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. > > > > Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, or > > some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish > > encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The > > Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic > > assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the > > Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to > > Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of > > the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. > > The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. > > > > The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early > > Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota > > sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date properly. > > There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and Siouan, > > the 'metal' term. > > > > JEK > > > > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 17:02:46 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:02:46 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? ---------- >From: "Alan Knutson" >To: >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > wolverine occurred as far south as 37?N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), From simpsond at email.arizona.edu Tue Jul 16 17:10:24 2002 From: simpsond at email.arizona.edu (Erik) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:10:24 -0500 Subject: Little People Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I don't know if this is a thread, John, but the Christianized Chiracahua > Apache children I used to teach in New Mexico referred to arrowheads > as coming from the devil's workshop, as evil things. I was amazed. >I wonder if this is a piece with the northern Plains conception that >arrowheads were created by Trickster? I think conflict between groups is >considered to be one of his presents, too. > >JEK I believe the general Apachean belief on arrowheads is they come from lightning. From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:18:05 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:18:05 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/12248 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? > > ---------- > >From: "Alan Knutson" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > > > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37?N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), > > From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:21:06 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:21:06 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: David Just to mention that map on the website is its current distribution, historically it was much wider (i.e. as far south as 37?N in North America). Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Knutson" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/12248 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Costa" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > > > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? > > > > ---------- > > >From: "Alan Knutson" > > >To: > > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > > > > > > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37?N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), > > > > > > From boris at terracom.net Tue Jul 16 17:26:22 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:26:22 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Another website that deals with the historical distribution of the wolverine can be found at: http://www.predatorconservation.org/predator_info/Forest_Clearinghouse/Wolve rine/wolv1-1.htm The website also has further references to other sources(hard copy). Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? > > ---------- > >From: "Alan Knutson" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am > > > > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37?N (northern boundary of Oklahoma), > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 16 17:26:09 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:26:09 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Yes, I noticed that what the map said was wildly at variance with that 37?N business. Information on original pre-European distribution of animals is often hard to come by, tho. ---------- >From: "Alan Knutson" >To: >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:21 am > > David > > Just to mention that map on the website is its current distribution, > historically it was much wider (i.e. as far south as 37?N in North America). > > Alan K > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Knutson" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:18 PM > Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > >> http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/12248 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Costa" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >> >> >> > Where in the Smithsonian website is this mentioned? >> > >> > ---------- >> > >From: "Alan Knutson" >> > >To: >> > >Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes >> > >Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002, 10:02 am >> > > >> > >> > > Also in terms of the wolverine, alternate names are the 'glutton' or >> > > 'grison', "Gulo gulo", the Smithsonian website indicates the >> > > wolverine occurred as far south as 37?N (northern boundary of > Oklahoma), >> > >> > >> >> > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 16 18:19:19 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:19:19 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: en francais, 'wolverine' is " carcajou," which seems of indigenous origin. On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word > > mnaja (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. Being English I don't know what > > a wolverine is except remembering it as an epithet for a Michigan > > Regiment in the Civil war led by General Custer played by Errol > > Flynn. > > I thought Custer was in the regular army in the cavalry? Michigan is > called the Wolverine State, I think. > > > I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. > > A wolverine is to a marten as a tank is to a sportscar, though I'm not > sure whether this conception would meet with the approval of the > taxonomists. In northern North America there's an intermediate of sorts, a > large, darkish martern called variously a fisher or a pekan, or sometimes, > a cat. I think that the French in particular called things like raccoons, > fishers, and skunks chats. Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to > underlie the 'wild cat' conception in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in > Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' that I think might refer to a > skunk or a fisher or maybe a wolverine - perhaps one of the Missouria > names? I've forgotten the actual name, too, awkwardly enough. > > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 16 18:22:43 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:22:43 -0500 Subject: black cats and rats de bois In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > In my experience, the French 'Algonquianist missionaries' called the raccoon > 'chat sauvage', standard for all French in les Pays d'en haut. and the fisher 'pecan'. They might have been more variable > about skunks, tho the Illinois missionaries at least called them 'be(s)te > puante'. yes. precisely. stinking beast They tended to call the possum 'rat de bois'. Yes. exactly. woodrat Michael McCafferty From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 16 19:10:47 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:10:47 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: Dear all: I assume Lewis and Clark referred to skunks as pole cats/polecats because both animals emit vile odo(u)rs and are rather vicious - in shortt they share some salient if disagrreable characteristics. Yes, Bruce, Michigan is indeed the Wolverine State. (I knew that Ohio was the Buckeye State but it took me a long time to find out that buckeye is what we Brits normally call horse chestnut). As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised French forms for 'the English', etc. Anthony Grant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 16 19:40:09 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:40:09 -0600 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D34581A.14686.ED3413@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is > the Avonlea culture? The set including maza is the set in question. I think that set is regular in Siouan, but I forget at the moment. Mostly west of Minnesota, across the Canadian Prairies and down into Montana and the Dakotas, by my recollection. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 16 20:26:06 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:26:06 -0500 Subject: coyotes Message-ID: "Root extension" unless the Dakotan form had it too. I have no idea. We need to ID the *mihka part. I'd guess it's adjectival in function. Does 'coon' have nasalization in Dakota too? If not, then I don't think there's a connection. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Sent: 7/16/02 11:01 AM Subject: RE: coyotes On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > The term "micha" seems closer to a real name as opposed to a taboo > replacement. It is the second half of the Kaw term, "$oN-mikka-se" > 'coyote'. The $oN- portion is clearly the $uNke term for canid. What do you make of the -se, which matches the -si in Omaha-Ponca? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 04:34:29 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:34:29 -0600 Subject: PS 'raccoon' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > We need to ID the *mihka part. I'd guess it's adjectival in function. Does > 'coon' have nasalization in Dakota too? If not, then I don't think there's > a connection. Te wic^ha' PreDa *wikha' OP mikka' Ks mikka' Os mihka' Qu mikka' PDh *mi(N)hka IO mi(N)khe' Wi [wake'] {Reformulated from miNke' or wike' cf. treatment of 'rabbit'?} PCh ? PMV *wi(N)h-ka {-ka added to many animal names and other nouns} Of iya' {< *wih-a with loss of h and epenthetic y?} Tu wiha' PSE *wiha PS *wiha' (Bob might want to check the Tutelo. I can't make it out with my Windows fonts!) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 05:59:52 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:59:52 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, I can explain the -si's and maybe the miNh, too. JEK Sa mi'c^[h]a Thode Te s^uNma(N)ni(N)tu 'wandering (wild) dog' I see that Buechel gives mi'c^[h]aksic^a 'a small wolf'. Williams gives mi'c^[h]a, and mi'c^[h]aksic^a, for 'coyote'. Riggs gives both forms with the gloss 'a small species of wolf'. I suspect Buechel's listing is from Riggs. Incidentally, what is the distribution of ksic^a as 'small' in Dakotan? This is probably the explanation of the -si in Dhegiha, since *ksika > *sika. PreDa *mi(N)'kha (ksika) < PMV *miNh-ka ksika OP mi(N)'kkasi Ks s^oN'mi(N)kkase Os s^o[N]'mi(N)hkasi Qu [not available to me at present] PDh *s^oN(k)mi(N)hka si < PMV *s^uNk mih-ka ksika IO ma(N)nik[h]ai Wi maNaNniN'kaksik PCh *maNaNniNkha ksike < PMV *maNaNniNh-ka ksika The IO and Wi forms, taken in connection with the Ks and Os forms obviously provide a way to connect the *s^uNk mi(N)h-ka forms with the *s^uNk maNaNniN ones, by offering the possibility that *miNh-ka is an irregular contraction of *maNaNnih-ka. It's very interesting that adding the noun formant -ka to *maNaNniN presumably 'to walk' requires the -h. In fact, it's a little puzzling. One wonders if there might not be some mergers or reanalysis going on instead. Perhaps the maNaN of maNaNniN is connected with the maN in Dakotan (Teton) forms with maN, cf. maNyas^lec^a. PMV *s^uNk (miNh-ka | maNaNniNh-ka | (?) maNaNh-ka) ksika canine ??? wild, wandering coyote small From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 07:43:48 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:43:48 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: > I was interested in the brief discussion of relative clauses starting > on p. 11, and especially the structure (22) which shows the Hocank > relative clause as having an external head: N-head [null relativizer > Predicate-Determiner] with the part in [...] being the relative > clause. I noticed this, too, and it was on my list of things to ask about when the opportunity arose. I'm glad that Catherine asked instead of me, though, because she did a much better job of phrasing this difficult question and discussing the pros and cons of it than I would have. Incidentally, I believe Johannes has the honor of being the first in print with a discussion of Winnebago relative clauses. A separate but connected issue that occurs to me is to wonder to what extent -ra marks definiteness. It's something I've wondered about before, but it hadn't occurred to me that it might influence the analysis of relative clauses. > What happens if instead of just "the meat I cooked" (23b) we have "the > meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked yesterday" -- does "meat" > necessarily come at the beginning, or can you have orders like [my > mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat I-cooked determiner] > where "meat" is a clearly internal head? If "meat" has to be first, > it would argue for the external-head structure. I may have some examples that bear on this, from Lipkind's texts. As always, I may have put the length in wrong or done something else wrong trying to convert Lipkind's notation to Miner's. p. 59 ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. I finished it DEC Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here]. Strictly speaking, this is a noun clause, but I think the principle is the same. I think the head is, if anything, ware' 'work'. p. 58 - a similar case, though the governing verb functions as a conjunction 'while'. hiaN'j^=iNhi=wi'=ra jaagu' hamiNiNnaN'g=ire'= ska=naNk=?uN' father our DEF something he sat on he thought DUB SIT DO hiperes=ji'= naNk=s^e to know he arrived SIT QUOTE Approximately: "While our father may have thought he was sitting on something, he had an insight (came to a conclusion? realized something?)." Lipkind's interlinear is "our father what while sitting on he didn't know he came to know" I guess I'd better look further. Maybe there are some relevant examples in Radin's texts? I did notice under subordinating suffixes in Lipkind (p. 41) some cases that I took to be relativizations on object with =re. waniN'k t?e=ra'= re bird die you made it REL? 'the bird that you killed' naNaN'=tuz= re wood I took it REL? 'the wood that I took' Apparently not relativized on the object: pee'c^wac^ kiri=kjanaN= re train it will come back REL 'the train that is to come' From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 17 12:51:59 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:51:59 -0500 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <006a01c22cfc$9ac3d020$2e5001d5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: Algonquians from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi refer to Frenchman as 'wood-watercraft-person', as in Montagnais /m at stuku:Su/, Potawatomi /wemt at goZi/ and Illinois /me:htiko:Sia/. The traditional interepretation of this ethnonym asigns it the English translation "dugout canoe person". In my estimation, this gloss was a later, secondary meaning; the original sense, since the term dates to the very earliest contact between St. Lawrence river Algonquians and the French, would seem to be the latter's wooden and ships. Michael McCafferty On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Dear all: > > I assume Lewis and Clark referred to skunks as pole cats/polecats because both animals emit vile odo(u)rs and are rather vicious - in shortt they share some salient if disagrreable characteristics. > > Yes, Bruce, Michigan is indeed the Wolverine State. (I knew that Ohio was the Buckeye State but it took me a long time to find out that buckeye is what we Brits normally call horse chestnut). > > As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised French forms for 'the English', etc. > > Anthony Grant > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 15:45:52 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:45:52 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Clarification: On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra > o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF > > tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. > I finished it DEC > > Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here]. Note that the iNgigi enclitic is the reflexive possessive (or suus) of the causative, which is what the gloss 'he made me his own' was intended to convey. However, better would have been 'he made me (his own)', circumlocution due to Dorsey. In other words, 'he made me, who am his own'. (Is that even grammatical!?) 'Me' belongs to (is kin to) 'he'. I hope people get the idea. JEK From Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Wed Jul 17 16:06:02 2002 From: Johannes.Helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:06:02 +0200 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, I would like to respond to the questions Catherine brought up with regard to my remarks on relative clauses in Hocank in my recent IJAL paper. The questions are important because they touch on the constituent structure (and syntactic categories) in Hocank - and the answers may be of relevance for linguists working on other Siouan languages too. First of all, I did not intend to presuppose a definite answer to the question whether the nominal head is internal or external in Hocank relative clauses with the formula I used in the paper. The brackets in N-Head [Rel=zero predicate - Det] were not intended to suppose that N heads are external in Hocank. The question whether the head noun is internal or external was not important for the argumentation in my paper in that paragraph. In addition, I rather tend to assume that the nominal head belongs to the relative clause having constituet status as a whole. But since I did not investigate this question systematically, I am left with assumptions. Instead of talking about my feelings on this question I would like to present some facts about Hocank relative clauses which might lead to a definitive answer, or to further questions (both results are fine). At least, it should come out why it is difficult to answer this question. What I wanted to stress with the formula is the fact that word order is pretty fixed in Hocank RCs. The order is always Noun Head - Predicate - Determiner and this order exactly replicates the order in the ordinary noun phrase in Hocank except that the determiner is not obligatory. Permutations in this order are not accepted by Hocank consultants. In (1)a there is an example of a transitive clause including a RC modifying the subject noun huNuNc^ 'bear'. In (1)b-c, it is shown that the predicate of the RC cannot be moved before the head noun, and it seems to be the case that the adverbial particle goj? 'over there' needs to appear betwen head noun and predicate. What is possible is the permutation of the whole RC behind the predicate of the main clause, cf. (1)d. (1)a huNuNc^-z?- ra goj? hac^a-r? hiN-nuNx?-jiree-naN bear- brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF me-chased-started-DECL The brown bear I saw over there started to chase me. (1)b *goj? hac^a-r? huNuNc^-z?-ra ... (1)c *hac^a-r? huNuNc^-z?-ra goj? (1)d hiN-nuNx?-jiree-naN huNuNc^-z?- ra goj? hac^a-r? me-chased-started-DECL bear-brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF He started to chase me, the bear I saw over there. The examples demonstrate that the RC in Hocank has to be considered as a constituent, there is no possibility to separate the head noun from the predicate nor to change the order between them. These results parallel exactly the situation in NPs in Hocank. The head noun is followed by the modifier(s) and the article marks the end of the noun phrase (an exception are numerals which may follow the article). This structure is also reminiscent to the normal word order in independent clauses in Hocank with the clausal predicate strictly following the NPs in subject and object function (however, we find alternative marked constructions here). Hence, the RC resembles a nominalized clause, and the fact that the definite article -ra and the subordinating element -ra are homonym supports the idea that there is a historical connection. However, it might be interesting to note that -ra is not the only subordinating element. There is a set of three (attributive) demonstrative pronouns which may appear in the same structural position. These demonstratives are combinations of the so-called positional auxiliaries -naNk (be.sitting), -jee (be.standing), and -aNK (be.lying) plus an element -re (this 'proximate') or -ga (that 'distal'). The interesting thing about these forms is that they create a kind of positional classification of the referent of the noun they are attached to. Now, if they are used as subordinating forms as suffixes to the embedded verb, they always classify the head noun, no matter which semantic/ syntactic role this constituent may have in the RC, cf. the example in (2) (2) huNuNc^- r? goj? hac^a-j?ga bear- DEF over there I.seeing.it-DEM('distal'; standing) hiN-nuNx?-jiree-naN me-chase- start-DECL The bear I am seeing over there (standing) starts to chase me. In exampl (2) the bear is the direct object of the verb 'to see' in the RC and the attr. demonstrative classifies the bear as a standing one. If the bear were head noun and subject of the RC this demonstrative had the same effect. This demonstrates the close syntactic bond of the elements within the RC and the head noun, and it is a further similiarity to the ordinary NP where these attributive demonstratives have the same function (to classify the referent of the NP with regard to position and to mark the NP as definite) Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun would be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for external headedness, but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then this is the case in Hocank. The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head noun with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, the head noun almost always carries a definite article. I browsed through my notes to find examples with no definite article on the head noun and I could find examples for this only if the embedded predicate has a attributive demonstartive of the type shown in (2). In this case, the def article on the head noun seems to be optional. But I have the impression, that the head noun is still definite, even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct that internal heads of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of RC are clearly external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not clear to me either. Well, as usual, I leave all people alone with my observations still not being able to draw clear conclusions. I would like to encourage everybody to enter this discussion. Unfortunately, I am out of town for a few weeks which means that I won't be able to respond or to provide further data. Anyway, I am curious to see how you Catherine and perhaps others would comment the Hocank facts. Johannes Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC schrieb: > Ok, here's another question sparked off by the recent IJAL article. This > one is really totally irrelevant to Johannes' point, just something he > mentioned in passing -- I almost hesitate to bring it up for fear it'll be > seen as an unfair criticism of the article. So Johannes, if you're > reading this, it's really just a question! I was interested in the brief > discussion of relative clauses starting on p. 11, and especially the > structure (22) which shows the Hocank relative clause as having an external > head: N-head [null relativizer Predicate-Determiner] with the part in > [...] being the relative clause. This is pretty surprising for a Siouan > language -- relative clauses in Lakota, Crow, Hidatsa, Omaha are > internal-headed. (Though of course it's possible to have both internal and > external headed relatives in the same family, or even in the same > language... as far as I know no Siouan language has been shown to have > clearly external-headed relatives.) So it would be really interesting if > Hocank does have this structure. > > What I'm wondering is -- did Helmbrecht just assume the external-head > structure, or is there actually evidence for it in Hocank? The few > examples given are inconclusive; none of them have more than one > constituent besides the predicate, so it's not possible to distinguish N [ > predicate] from [N predicate]. What happens if instead of just "the meat > I cooked" (23b) we have "the meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked > yesterday" -- does "meat" necessarily come at the beginning, or can you > have orders like [my mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat > I-cooked determiner] where "meat" is a clearly internal head? If "meat" > has to be first, it would argue for the external-head structure. One > indication in (23b) that the head is actually external might be the > definite determiner on "meat", given the apparently universal fact that > internal heads of RCs must be indefinite (Williamson's indefiniteness > restriction).... The indefiniteness restriction is robust enough and has > enough raison d'etre -- required to allow operator binding to work right, > etc. -- that I'd take it seriously as an argument. > > Any thoughts? > Catherine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Johannes.Helmbrecht.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 369 bytes Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Johannes Helmbrecht URL: From munro at ucla.edu Wed Jul 17 16:16:57 2002 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:16:57 -0700 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: Maybe I can be the first to ask what happens when there is a noun subject on an object-headed RC in Hocank (e.g. 'the bear the man saw....'). We'd all like to know! Headless RCs are such a puzzle. Pam From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jul 17 17:15:04 2002 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:15:04 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > en francais, 'wolverine' is " carcajou," which seems of indigenous > origin. Random House Dict. (ed. 2) has Can. Fr. < Montagnais kwa:hkwa:ce:w Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 17 18:37:17 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:37:17 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D35A618.3BBE0D30@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Alan. It sure didn't sound French. :) On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > > > en francais, 'wolverine' is " carcajou," which seems of indigenous > > origin. > > Random House Dict. (ed. 2) has > > Can. Fr. < Montagnais kwa:hkwa:ce:w > > Alan > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 17 19:38:44 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:44 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: <3D3595EA.1ADC35D4@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > First of all, I did not intend to presuppose a definite answer to the > question whether the nominal head is internal or external in Hocank > relative clauses with the formula I used in the paper. I've noticed that (a) Siouanists are a bit diffident about the internally headed relative clauses in Siouan languages, and (b) non-Siouanists (of certain stripes) are a bit inclined to encourage this diffidence. ("You claim the relative clauses in X work how? There must be some mistake!") > However, it might be interesting to note that -ra is not the only > subordinating element. There is a set of three (attributive) > demonstrative pronouns which may appear in the same structural > position. These demonstratives are combinations of the so-called > positional auxiliaries -naNk (be.sitting), -jee (be.standing), and > -aNK (be.lying) plus an element -re (this 'proximate') or -ga (that > 'distal'). Ah, then this explains the =re morpheme I exemplified from Lipkind. Incidentally, I'm thinking that the contention I made there that noun clauses generally work like relative clauses comes to me from Johannes, or possibly Catherine. > Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her > contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the > head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun > would be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for > external headedness, but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then > this is the case in Hocank. I think Catherine waffled on this to some extent herself. I suppose the issue is that if the head is at the margin and you're trying to justify putting it inside the margin, it helps if you can show that something clearly within the margin is "outside" of it (outer-more than it??). > The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head > noun with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, > the head noun almost always carries a definite article. Which makes it useful to know for sure if we know that -ra marks definitenes. Suppose it marked something like referentiality/specificity? > ... but I have the impression, that the head noun is still definite, > even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct that internal heads > of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of RC are clearly > external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not clear to me > either. I think maybe what Catherine is getting at here is not that the head is indefinite as such, but that the definiteness of the head is marked on the clause as a whole, providing an argument for internal status of the head. And, if I am correctly anticipating the next step, we can argue that the determiner itself is not the head if we can show that it is optional. JEK From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jul 17 22:47:59 2002 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:47:59 -0500 Subject: black cats and rats de bois Message-ID: Dave Costa : > > Maybe wolverines, too. This would seem to underlie the 'wild cat' conception > > in Riggs. There's a Siouan name in Lewis & Clark that they render 'Black Cat' > > that I think might refer to a skunk or a fisher > > If they got the species identification correct (a big if), it's the fisher. > If Lewis and Clark didn't call skunks skunks (a term that's been used in > English a LONG time) they probably would have called it 'pole cat'. _Jrnls. Lewis & Clark Exped._ 3.211: "Roop-tar-hee or Second Village of the Mandans[:] 1st and Grand Chief--Pass-cop-sa-he or black Cat" [cf. Maximilian's Mandan schonta-pussa 'fisher', matoka 'wolverene'] L & C do call skunks "polecats". (They were numerous along the Columbia during salmon season.) Alan From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Thu Jul 18 02:37:55 2002 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:37:55 -0700 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <006a01c22cfc$9ac3d020$2e5001d5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: For whatever it's worth, the Caddo word for the little people is yahyashattsi?. That's in the popular orthography, where h is murmured (an interesting feature of Caddo phonetics), sh is the shibilant, ts is properly an affricate, and ? a glottal stop. The suffix -tsi? is indeed a diminutive, but I have no idea what yahyashat- might have come from. It's interesting to hear that somebody once used it for white people. Maybe it was used derisively? Those Spaniards may have been short, compared to the Caddos. Wally --On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:10 PM +0100 Anthony Grant wrote: > As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that > 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her > 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself > a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and > suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the > first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one > long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any > records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan > languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I > know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised > French forms for 'the English', etc. > Anthony Grant From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 18 05:16:06 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:16:06 -0600 Subject: Wolverines (Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes) In-Reply-To: <3D343D21.13090.83D712@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word mnaja > (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. ... I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota > Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. ... I looked in the Siouan Archives files, and in various dictionaries and, other than the Bushotter and Riggs references found only a Stoney form mnazan. I suppose the -n is the diminutive. I think the fricative shoift is normal. I also checked under 'lion', 'cat', and possible phonological matches without luck. I'd expect something like *naNz^e in Dhegiha or Ioway-Otoe, and like *naNaNs^ in Winnebago, though I also looked in Omaha-Ponca under *bdhaNz^e and in Winnebago under *pa(N)naNs^, just in case. This doesn't mean there isn't some attestation out there. I did notice "shanmonikasi" as a variant for 'wolf, prairie wolf, coyote' in IO, attributed to Maximilian. I also think I saw the Bushotter reference in question. Interestingly, it was a list of animals, and between 'badger' and 'lion' were ma'yas^lec^a, s^uNkmanitu, and s^uNkmanitu thaNka. In the interlinear these were glossed 'coyotes, wolves, and large wolves', and in the free they were glossed 'coyotes, foxes'. I suppose we can take 'lion' as a way of saying (in English) 'big cat', consistent with 'cat' as a generic preditor term. JEK From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Thu Jul 18 14:37:07 2002 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:37:07 -0500 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question Message-ID: This gets a bit long and messy... perhaps a key will help. SO -- Johannes' words have >, John's replies have nothing, and my (Catherine's) replies have ##. > Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her > contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the > head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun > would be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for > external headedness, but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then > this is the case in Hocank. I think Catherine waffled on this to some extent herself. I suppose the issue is that if the head is at the margin and you're trying to justify putting it inside the margin, it helps if you can show that something clearly within the margin is "outside" of it (outer-more than it??). ##Yes, exactly. Pam's question about "what happens when there is a noun subject on an object-headed RC in Hocank (e.g. 'the bear (that)the man saw....')" is a good example of this. If it can be "man-bear-saw-def", corresponding to a normal sentence "man-bear-saw" meaning 'the man saw the bear', it strongly indicates that the head "bear" internal to the relative clause. (I won't say it absolutely PROVES it -- there's the remote possibility of some sort of topicalization of "man" (as for that man, the bear he saw was...) etc. -- but it's a very very strong indication, especially if it's a semantically/pragmatically unmarked order.) On the other hand, if it turns out that only the order "bear-man-saw-def" is possible, it again doesn't prove anything, but it does make an external-head analysis more likely. The head "bear" could be obligatorily first because it is actually outside the clause, or it could be that, for information-structure reasons (the head being the topic of the relative clause, presumably)it has to come first but is still within the clause. There -- that's completely muddied the waters, right? John said it more clearly: the issue is whether something clearly belonging to the clause ("within the margin") can precede the head or not. Looking at the examples people have brought up: ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. I finished it DEC Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here]. ##This one looks to me like a clear example of something preceding the head -- ware 'work' certainly seems to be the head, as John said, unless the gloss is somehow misleading. (By the way, John -- I don't see why this would be "strictly speaking a noun clause" ... what do you mean?) So this example, assuming head = ware, seems to argue for a head-internal structure. >..word order is pretty fixed in Hocank RCs. The order is always Noun Head - Predicate - Determiner and this >order exactly replicates the order in the ordinary noun phrase in Hocank except that the determiner is not >obligatory. Permutations in this order are not accepted by Hocank consultants. In (1)a there is an example of a >transitive clause including a RC modifying the subject noun huNuNc^ 'bear'. In (1)b-c, it is shown that the >predicate of the RC cannot be moved before the head noun, and it seems to be the case that the adverbial particle >goj? 'over there' needs to appear betwen head noun and predicate. What is possible is the permutation of the >whole RC behind the predicate of the main clause, cf. (1)d. >(1)a huNuNc^-z?- ra goj? hac^a-r? hiN-nuNx?-jiree-naN > bear- brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF me-chased-started-DECL > The brown bear I saw over there started to chase me. >(1)b *goj? hac^a-r? huNuNc^-z?-ra ... >(1)c *hac^a-r? huNuNc^-z?-ra goj? >(1)d hiN-nuNx?-jiree-naN huNuNc^-z?- ra goj? hac^a-r? > me-chased-started-DECL bear-brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF > He started to chase me, the bear I saw over there. ##Now, this set, on the other hand, seems to lean toward a head-initial structure (i.e. EITHER external head or else "topicalization" (or something) of the head within the clause) The interesting example is (1b). I assume that Goja' hac^a-ra' huNuNc^zi-ra hac^a-X is a perfectly fine sentence? (With "X" being some main-clause verb ending instead of -ra'; meaning "I saw the brown bear over there.") If not, then the example is irrelevant -- there's some independant reason why the adverbial can't precede huNuNc^-zi-ra, having nothing to do with its status as head of a relative clause. > The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head > noun with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, > the head noun almost always carries a definite article. Which makes it useful to know for sure if we know that -ra marks definitenes. Suppose it marked something like referentiality/specificity? ##Yes, this is absolutely crucial. Anyone have any ideas how to find out??? > ... but I have the impression, that the head noun is still definite, > even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct that internal heads > of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of RC are clearly > external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not clear to me > either. I think maybe what Catherine is getting at here is not that the head is indefinite as such, but that the definiteness of the head is marked on the clause as a whole, providing an argument for internal status of the head. ##Yes. In languages with internal-headed relative clauses, the head is marked with an indefinite determiner (or none) EVEN IF IT IS SEMANTICALLY DEFINITE. There's usually a clause-external determiner which marks the semantic definiteness or indefiniteness of the entire construction (and thereby, of the head). John Boyle's recent paper (from the Spearfish meeting) shows this very nicely in Hidatsa, and it's well known in Lakhota and a bunch of other languages, from various families ... Some syntactic analyses of internal-headed RCs involve raising the head to the position of the external determiner or coindexing it with that determiner to account for its semantics. This is actually very similar to what Johannes shows in the next example: >Now, if they [positional demonstratives including je'ga 'standing' in 2 --CR] are used as subordinating forms as >suffixes to the embedded verb, they always classify the head noun, no matter which semantic/ syntactic role this >constituent may have in the RC, cf. the example in (2) >(2) huNuNc^- r? goj? hac^a-j?ga > bear- DEF over there I.seeing.it-DEM('distal'; standing) > hiN-nuNx?-jiree-naN > me-chase- start-DECL > The bear I am seeing over there (standing) starts to chase me. >In exampl (2) the bear is the direct object of the verb 'to see' in the RC and the attr. demonstrative classifies the >bear as a standing one. If the bear were head noun and subject of the RC this demonstrative had the same effect. >This demonstrates the close syntactic bond of the elements within the RC and the head noun, and it is a further >similiarity to the ordinary NP where these attributive demonstratives have the same function (to classify the referent >of the NP with regard to position and to mark the NP as definite) ##Exactly! But I wouldn't just say it demonstrates a "bond" between "the elements within the RC and the head noun", I'd say it (may?) show that the head noun IS ONE OF "the elements within the RC". This example in fact provides the strongest argument so far that the head is actually internal. An attribute of the head is marked on the clause as a whole: [[bear. -ra-there-I.see.it]standing] Which makes me wonder all the more about the status of the -ra element. And, if I am correctly anticipating the next step, we can argue that the determiner itself is not the head if we can show that it is optional. ##Huh? Sorry, John. You've lost me here. My fault, probabably! Actually, I might well claim that the determiner (the clause-final one) IS the head in the sense that the whole construction is a DP. But that's not the one Johannes is saying is optional, I think (???) And this is a different "head" than the nominal head of a relative ... >As can be seen from the examples, the head noun almost always carries a definite article. I browsed through my >notes to find examples with no definite article on the head noun and I could find examples for this only if the >embedded predicate has a attributive demonstartive of the type shown in (2). In this case, the def article on the >head noun seems to be optional ##What about cases where the whole construction is indefinite? (A bear that I saw...) ##Enough for one message! Thanks for your reply, Johannes, and I hope you'll write again when you are back home. Great examples. Once again, I do realize that this issue wasn't relevant to your paper -- I was just excited to see someone mentioning RCs at all! Catherine From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 18 17:19:09 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:19:09 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: Dear Wally and other Siouanists: I suspect that the name was used because what Europeans the Caddos had met seemed to have supernatural powers (for instance a knowledge of firearms, eyeglasses, etc). This was a belief originally shared by a number of other groups, for instance some Polynesian groups - a belief soon shattered, of course. Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Wallace Chafe To: Anthony Grant ; Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:37 AM Subject: Re: wild cats etc > For whatever it's worth, the Caddo word for the little people is > yahyashattsi?. That's in the popular orthography, where h is murmured (an > interesting feature of Caddo phonetics), sh is the shibilant, ts is > properly an affricate, and ? a glottal stop. The suffix -tsi? is indeed a > diminutive, but I have no idea what yahyashat- might have come from. It's > interesting to hear that somebody once used it for white people. Maybe it > was used derisively? Those Spaniards may have been short, compared to the > Caddos. > > Wally > > --On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:10 PM +0100 Anthony Grant > wrote: > > > As to little people - it's not Siouan per se, but I happen to know that > > 'little people' (discussed in extenso by Elsie Clews parsons in her > > 'Notes on the Caddo') are called /yahyahsacci'/ in Caddo, which is itself > > a diminutive, and that a form of this stem, spelt 'yayecha' and > > suggesting that whites were regarded as other-worldly, occurs in the > > first recording of Caddo (vfrom c. 1688) as a term for white people, one > > long since eclipsed by /inkinisih/ from 'English'. Are there any > > records of similar metaphors being used for Euroamericans in Siouan > > languages (as can be found in some Oceanic languages for example)? I > > know about the usual tropes - 'long knives', derivations of Ojibweised > > French forms for 'the English', etc. > > Anthony Grant > > > From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Jul 18 19:20:05 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:20:05 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <3D35A618.3BBE0D30@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: 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 Thu Jul 18 19:27:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:27:46 -0600 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <002c01c22e7f$3d68d540$6a6d073e@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of > these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. It's not quite that simple, since the two cases of 'spider' = 'Trickster' that I know of off the top of my head are Cheyenne and Dakotan, and the Cheyenne case includes 'whiteman', while the Dakotan case doesn't. On the other hand, as far as I can recall Mandan also has 'Trickster' = 'whiteman', but not 'Trickster' = 'spider'. A further dimension, of course, is whether Trickster is called Whiteman in English by persons of the group in question. In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jul 18 20:01:20 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:01:20 -0700 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: Actually, the spider/trickster/white man terms in the Plains Algonquian languages can all be shown to have meant 'trickster' originally in Proto-Algonquian, not 'spider'. This is evident from comparing the cognates of the 'trickster' word in the Great Lakes languages, where that 'spider/trickster/white man' thing doesn't happen. In those languages the 'trickster' word just means 'trickster' (the word has not discernible etymology), and the 'spider' words all look rather similar to each other byt very different from 'trickster'. So Plains Algonquian 'spider' comes from 'trickster', not vice versa. Dave Costa >> Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of these >> from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. From boris at terracom.net Thu Jul 18 20:23:05 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:23:05 -0500 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes Message-ID: Shannon, I'm assuming these are at least partially transparent compounds, are they totally transparent to a native-speaker? Thanks Alan K ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon West" To: Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:20 PM Subject: RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > 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 Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 18 21:19:44 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:19:44 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: RE: the Dakota form for 'white man', I have heard (possibly from you, John) that there have been folk-etymological attempts to link it up with a word meaning ' be evil'. I've also heard Wasichu used as a term for whites among Indians who are not Siouan but who have an interest in Pan-Indianism. Dakotanism (often billed as 'Lakota spirituality') has enjoyed something of a reception in England too among New Agers. My understanding is that many Lakotas would be displeased at this. Allan Taylor has a note on Trickster etc in his 'Comparative Caddoan', of which I forget the details. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: wild cats etc > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > > Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of > > these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. > > It's not quite that simple, since the two cases of 'spider' = 'Trickster' > that I know of off the top of my head are Cheyenne and Dakotan, and the > Cheyenne case includes 'whiteman', while the Dakotan case doesn't. On the > other hand, as far as I can recall Mandan also has 'Trickster' = > 'whiteman', but not 'Trickster' = 'spider'. A further dimension, of > course, is whether Trickster is called Whiteman in English by persons of > the group in question. > > In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, > suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals > fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people > object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, > and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic > ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not > sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota > person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism > doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. > (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 18 22:00:49 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:00:49 -0600 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: <002601c22ea0$d8bb6500$733b073e@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > RE: the Dakota form for 'white man', I have heard (possibly from you, John) > that there have been folk-etymological attempts to link it up with a word > meaning ' be evil'. Not me I think. Or, if I knew of this, I'd forgotten. Possibly s^i'c^a 'bad'? But I think if you added ?uN 'do', you'd have to change c^ (< *k) to l. However, as soon as I start forming new words in Dakotan, my fundamental ignorance of the language shows. > I've also heard Wasichu used as a term for whites among > Indians who are not Siouan but who have an interest in Pan-Indianism. Evangelical Dakotanism. From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Jul 18 23:31:26 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:31:26 -0700 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <02e501c22e98$ed543260$565faad0@machine> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Knutson > Sent: July 18, 2002 1:23 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > > Shannon, > > I'm assuming these are at least partially transparent compounds, are they > totally transparent to a native-speaker? > > Thanks > Alan K Yep. Completely transparent. But damned if I can find what jukana means now. :) Shannon From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 20 21:19:58 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:19:58 -0600 Subject: Spiders, Trickster, and Whitemen (Re: wild cats etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > Actually, the spider/trickster/white man terms in the Plains Algonquian > languages can all be shown to have meant 'trickster' originally in > Proto-Algonquian, not 'spider'. ... I decided to try to summarize the tgerms for 'spider', 'Trickster', and 'whiteman' in Missisippi Valley. I haven't tried to include secondary considerations like what terms are used in English for 'Trickster', though this can be interesting. For example, I gather that the Mandan may generally call him Whiteman in English, while the Omaha, having come to calling monkeys Is^ti'nikhe in Omaha now call him Monkey in English. If there's more interest, perhaps folks can add additional languages from the rest of the family, or fill in some of the holes, correct misimpressions, etc. All of the 'whiteman' terms are under suspicion, often indicated in the sources, of referring specifically to the French, originally, except for those based on 'big knife', which presumably refer to 'American'. Note that 'whiteman', though traditional, is something of an odd gloss. Presumably it originates in European color-based terminologies - red men, black men, white men, yellow men, too, for that matter. But the Siouan terms generally have no reference to color, and usually specifically include both Euroamericans and Afroamericans. Probably Asian Americans, too, for what that's worth, though I'm not sure. Sometimes African Americans are specifically distinguished as 'black whitemen'. The general idea is apparently 'non-Native, not indigenous people' as opposed to 'people of the usual kind' or indigenous Americans, who would normally be identified in terms of ethnic group. There are, of course, weakly developed terminologies for non-indigenous ethnic groups, too, though this list usually stops at 'French' (the unmarked case of normal non-indigenous people), 'British, Canadian', 'Spanish, Mexican', and the johnny-come-lately 'Americans, Virginians'. There is sometimes a substitution of the 'American' term for the 'whiteman' or 'non-indigenous people' term, and there may be confusion in the 'Spanish, Mexican' and 'French' terms due to the transfer of French authority over the Louisinana (exercised from St. Louis) to the Spanish. Dakotan Sa uNkto'mi uNkto'mi was^i'c^uN Te ikto'(mi) ikto'(mi) was^i'c^u(N) Santee from Riggs and Williamson. Teton from Buechel and Ingham. I believe there are more variants of 'Trickster'. For 'whiteman', cf. sic^uN, s^ic^uN 'spirit or spirit-like thing in a man which guards him from birth against evil spirits' (Buechel). Dhegiha OP ukki'gdhiske is^ti'nikhe wa'xe (not wa'ghe) Ks c^c^ixobe is^ta'xe Os hce'xope iNs^ta'xiN Qu moi'kka ho'mittatta is^ta'xe, is^ta'xi Omaha-Ponca from Dorsey and Swetland & Stabler and LaFlesche. Kansa and Quapaw from Rankin. Osage from LaFlesche. The Omaha-Ponca 'spider' term s glossed 'it weaves itself', but I suppose it could be 'it weaves for itself'. Kansa 'spider' looks like 'holy house', the Osage one like 'holy buffalo'. The Quapaw one resembles Quapaw mani'kka 'earth' (other Dhegiha terms similar, with the -n- somewhat elidable). The Kansa, Osage, and Quapaw 'whiteman' terms are generally interpreted as 'yellow eyes', htough it's a fricative gradation of zi 'yellow' and sometimes the vowel is -e. Omaha-Ponca wa'xe is often explained as 'maker', but that would be wa'ghe < wa-gaghe. Unfortunately, transcriptions distinguishing x and gh are scarce, other than Dorsey's. IO wagri' xa'xaj^e isj^iN'khi ma'?uNkhe maNt^uNkhe, mat^?uNkhe ?'metal ...' mai?uN ?'knife doer' The IO form for 'spider' is based on wagri' 'bug', but I'm not sure of xa'xaj^e. The unreduplkicated form xa'j^e is 'hay'. There is also wagri' xaN'xaNj^in~e 'swarming with maggots'. Note that xaN'j^e ~ xaN'n~e (similar, but not etymologically identical) is 'big'. The terms for 'whiteman' are explained as 'iron worker, land worker', which might work for the second set, cf. maNd^e' 'iron' (t^ = theta, d^ = edh). UN is 'to do', but uNkhe is less clear. The male declarative is khe, but declaratives are not usually (ever?) part of lexicalized forms in Siouan languages. The last looks like a fast speech rendition of something beginning with maN(aN)'hiN 'knife'. Wi wikirihoo'kere wakj^aN'ka=ga waxobiN'niN 'spirit' waNaNksga' 'whiteman' (literally) maNiNxe'te 'big knife' ('American') ware'niNka 'work man' The 'spider' term looks like 'scalp lock bug'. I believe the final -ga of 'Trickster' is the demonstartive attached to names or first person kin terms, etc., essentially a mark of respect, I think, or at least formality. The first 'whiteman' term incorporates *xop-riN 'be holy', though this stem seems not to be found independently in Winnebago. The general root *xop- is found throughout Siouan, and xop-riN, with the same auxiliary verb, occurs in Mandan. The third version of 'whiteman' is probably the usual 'big knife' term for 'American', though contracted (maNaNhiN' 'knife' xete' 'big'). JEK From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Sat Jul 20 21:53:33 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:53:33 +0100 Subject: Spiders, Trickster, and Whitemen (Re: wild cats etc) Message-ID: Dear John: Fascinating stuff! As I recall, Pawnee and Arikara call white people 'person white': sahni$taaka in Arikara, tsahriksta(a)ka in Pawnee (apologies if there are errors in these forms). The Is^tahe form also occurs in a Wichita vocabulary from the 1850s to refer to some non-Indian ethnic groups. (I'll check up which ones; I think African-Americans and Mexicans had compound names involving this stem.) It's probably a loan from Osage. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: Spiders, Trickster, and Whitemen (Re: wild cats etc) > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > Actually, the spider/trickster/white man terms in the Plains Algonquian > > languages can all be shown to have meant 'trickster' originally in > > Proto-Algonquian, not 'spider'. ... > > I decided to try to summarize the tgerms for 'spider', 'Trickster', and > 'whiteman' in Missisippi Valley. I haven't tried to include secondary > considerations like what terms are used in English for 'Trickster', though > this can be interesting. For example, I gather that the Mandan may > generally call him Whiteman in English, while the Omaha, having come to > calling monkeys Is^ti'nikhe in Omaha now call him Monkey in English. > > If there's more interest, perhaps folks can add additional languages from > the rest of the family, or fill in some of the holes, correct > misimpressions, etc. > > All of the 'whiteman' terms are under suspicion, often indicated in the > sources, of referring specifically to the French, originally, except for > those based on 'big knife', which presumably refer to 'American'. Note > that 'whiteman', though traditional, is something of an odd gloss. > Presumably it originates in European color-based terminologies - red men, > black men, white men, yellow men, too, for that matter. But the Siouan > terms generally have no reference to color, and usually specifically > include both Euroamericans and Afroamericans. Probably Asian Americans, > too, for what that's worth, though I'm not sure. Sometimes African > Americans are specifically distinguished as 'black whitemen'. > > The general idea is apparently 'non-Native, not indigenous people' as > opposed to 'people of the usual kind' or indigenous Americans, who would > normally be identified in terms of ethnic group. > > There are, of course, weakly developed terminologies for non-indigenous > ethnic groups, too, though this list usually stops at 'French' (the > unmarked case of normal non-indigenous people), 'British, Canadian', > 'Spanish, Mexican', and the johnny-come-lately 'Americans, Virginians'. > There is sometimes a substitution of the 'American' term for the > 'whiteman' or 'non-indigenous people' term, and there may be confusion in > the 'Spanish, Mexican' and 'French' terms due to the transfer of French > authority over the Louisinana (exercised from St. Louis) to the Spanish. > > Dakotan > > Sa uNkto'mi uNkto'mi was^i'c^uN > Te ikto'(mi) ikto'(mi) was^i'c^u(N) > > Santee from Riggs and Williamson. Teton from Buechel and Ingham. I > believe there are more variants of 'Trickster'. For 'whiteman', cf. > sic^uN, s^ic^uN 'spirit or spirit-like thing in a man which guards him > from birth against evil spirits' (Buechel). > > Dhegiha > > OP ukki'gdhiske is^ti'nikhe wa'xe (not wa'ghe) > Ks c^c^ixobe is^ta'xe > Os hce'xope iNs^ta'xiN > Qu moi'kka ho'mittatta is^ta'xe, is^ta'xi > > Omaha-Ponca from Dorsey and Swetland & Stabler and LaFlesche. Kansa and > Quapaw from Rankin. Osage from LaFlesche. The Omaha-Ponca 'spider' term > s glossed 'it weaves itself', but I suppose it could be 'it weaves for > itself'. Kansa 'spider' looks like 'holy house', the Osage one like 'holy > buffalo'. The Quapaw one resembles Quapaw mani'kka 'earth' (other Dhegiha > terms similar, with the -n- somewhat elidable). The Kansa, Osage, and > Quapaw 'whiteman' terms are generally interpreted as 'yellow eyes', htough > it's a fricative gradation of zi 'yellow' and sometimes the vowel is -e. > Omaha-Ponca wa'xe is often explained as 'maker', but that would be wa'ghe > < wa-gaghe. Unfortunately, transcriptions distinguishing x and gh are > scarce, other than Dorsey's. > > IO wagri' xa'xaj^e isj^iN'khi ma'?uNkhe > maNt^uNkhe, mat^?uNkhe ?'metal ...' > mai?uN ?'knife doer' > > The IO form for 'spider' is based on wagri' 'bug', but I'm not sure of > xa'xaj^e. The unreduplkicated form xa'j^e is 'hay'. There is also wagri' > xaN'xaNj^in~e 'swarming with maggots'. Note that xaN'j^e ~ xaN'n~e > (similar, but not etymologically identical) is 'big'. The terms for > 'whiteman' are explained as 'iron worker, land worker', which might work > for the second set, cf. maNd^e' 'iron' (t^ = theta, d^ = edh). UN is 'to > do', but uNkhe is less clear. The male declarative is khe, but > declaratives are not usually (ever?) part of lexicalized forms in Siouan > languages. The last looks like a fast speech rendition of something > beginning with maN(aN)'hiN 'knife'. > > Wi wikirihoo'kere wakj^aN'ka=ga waxobiN'niN 'spirit' > waNaNksga' 'whiteman' (literally) > maNiNxe'te 'big knife' ('American') > ware'niNka 'work man' > > The 'spider' term looks like 'scalp lock bug'. I believe the final -ga of > 'Trickster' is the demonstartive attached to names or first person kin > terms, etc., essentially a mark of respect, I think, or at least > formality. The first 'whiteman' term incorporates *xop-riN 'be holy', > though this stem seems not to be found independently in Winnebago. The > general root *xop- is found throughout Siouan, and xop-riN, with the same > auxiliary verb, occurs in Mandan. The third version of 'whiteman' is > probably the usual 'big knife' term for 'American', though contracted > (maNaNhiN' 'knife' xete' 'big'). > > JEK > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 20 22:19:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:19:21 -0600 Subject: Helmsbrecht Queries: Frequentative -ke Message-ID: Let me get a few more of my queries out of the way now, though Johannes is away for a few weeks and won't see these until he gets back. Actually, it seems like he may not be the only one away for a few weeks ... I wish I was, too, because it's hot as blazes here. JH (2002. Nouns and Verbs in Hocank IJAL 68.1:9) mentions 'The verbal suffix -ke (see Lipkind 1945:39), which functions as a frequentative marker, also appears with nouns or, more accurately, derived words designating a nominal concept, ...' He gives as examples caan-niN'(k)-keres^-ge 'fawn' = 'deer-DIM-be spotted-FREQ' and kiriki'ris-ge 'downy woodpecker' = 'be striped-FREQ', to use his orthoraphy (rendered in ASCII) with dashes to clarify the morphological structure. It would be normaly for -ke to be voiced in this context, I believe. Lipkind's examples of the -ke frequentative, are (1) maNaNs^o'-ke-s^uNnuN-naN 'he often whittles' = '(he) whittles-FREQ-CUST-DEC', in which people will no doubt recognize in -s^uNnuN- (< *s^nuN) the cognate of that Dhegiha habitual -s^naN- (2) haNke' waru'c^-ka-niN-naN 'he seldom eats' = 'NEG (he) eats-FREQ-NEG-DEC', showing that the frequentative -ke is abluating (-kE) However, I'd suggest that the -ge in the two examples shown is not the frequentative, but a noun-forming suffix *-ka found elsewhere in Mississippi Valley Siouan and paricularly common in the often transparently derived names of animals. Other examples abound in Winnebago, of course, but it might be more to the point to show examples elsewhere, e.g., Mandan raN'he 'back' vs. OP naN'kka < naNh-ka; Winnebago ruuc^-ge' 'dove', OP dhi'tta < *rut-ka; Dakotan c^haNt(e'), OP naN'de vs. Mandan raN't-ka, Winnebago naNaNc^-ge' ~ naNaNc^ 'heart'. Sometimes the underlying root is clear, and the whole can be rendered, perhaps, 'characterized by X', which is not inconsistant with the frequentative reading, but the Winnebago form of the frequentative -kE, is from earlier -hkE (since it's voiceless), while the noun-forming suffix is *-ka, unaspirated. The 'characterized by' gloss is often applied to a somewhat similar suffix -ka in Dakotan, though that is perhaps more often added to stative verbs. Interesting, Rankin has shown that -kha endings in Dakotan are often from *h-ka, i.e., -ka endings added to historically h-final roots. This also explains -ga and -kka endings in Omaha-Ponca, i.e., they are from *-ka and *h-ka, or *ka added to V-final and h-final roots. It's not impossible that the Winnebago -ke frequentative is itself a result of reanalysis of *h-ke < *h-ka as an independent formation. By way of background, pretty nearly all *ka and *xa become ge and xe in Winnebago (and Chiwere), whereupon Winnebago loses the final e, along with other final -e, unless the e follows a cluster like *-hk or *s^k and so on. Thus, Winnebago ends up with -k vs. -C-ge vs. -ke (<-h-ka) for nouns with this formant. Some nouns just end in -k, of course. Anyway, I'm not sure if we want to conclude that -ge final nouns in Winnebago reflect the particularly Winnebago -ke frequentative, though it's not an unreasonable hypothesis in Winnebago (if one omits the -k final nouns). Given Johannes' goal in this apper of looking for markers of nouns, it's possible we might want to reexamine -ge in this context. However, we have to bear in mind that across Siouan *-ka is often added to stative verbs, too. The *-htaN-ka 'be big' set is a well known case, and often surfaces without -ka. In short, the problem of identifying nouns is an old one. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 21 04:46:47 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:46:47 -0600 Subject: Helmbrecht Queries: Postpositions Message-ID: I've got another query. In Johannes' article (2002. Nouns and Verbs in Hochank. IJAL 68.1:24), he says 'Relevant for the identification of nouns in Hocank is the fact that the local position of an object relative to another object is not expressed by an adpositional phrase (three are no adpositions in Hocank) but by a constgruction which resembles much more a genetive phrase which is formally simply a juxtaposition of two words in Hocank.' An example would be: ks^e= i'z^aN waaru'c^ hihag=e'j^a naN'k= s^aNnaN apple INDEF table top there be.sitting DECL I'm in two minds on this because, actually, I've often felt that postpositions in Omaha-Ponca, anyway, had various analogies to verbs, and because I know that they also fall into at least two different morphological and syntactic types. However, there are certain things in Sioua languages, including Winnebago that at least look like postpositions, and I'd be reluctant to dispose of them in passing like this. I'm wondering if Johannes has some additional thinking on ths subject that he'd like to go into, considerations that might have been out of place in this article. If I had to identify postpositions in Winnebago, I'd point first to forms like e(e)'=ja. This is glossed above as 'there', but etymologically it is e 'it, that, the aforesaid' plus an enclitic =j^a. The =j^a can't occur independently, but it's essentially a locative postposition, like the =gi in e(e)'=gi 'here'. The glosses here are somewhat notional. Lipkind (1945:52) speaks of egi as an adverb, and shows that it compounds with various nouns: c^iinaN'g=r(a)=egi 'in town' haNaNh(e)=egi (or maybe haNhe=gi) 'tonight' (Miner also gives haNaNhe'=r(a)=egi 'at night') maNaN=n(a)=e'gi 'to the earth' < maN' 'earth' waN'g=r(a)=egi 'above' < waN'k 'top' For examples with other demonstratives (than e), see Lipkind (1945:53): ee'gi 'here' mee'gi 'here near speaker' dee'gi 'here near speaker' higi' 'here in its place' gagi' 'there' z^eegi' 'there near you' ee'j^a 'there' z^ee'j^a 'there near you' hij^a 'there in its place' gai'j^a 'there near him' (obviously ga + (h)ij^a in this case) Perhaps the glosses suggestg that speakers ae a bit hazy on the relationships of the forms, and that they are perhaps completely lexicalized, but, to me, it looks like essentially a case of demonstratives (h)i, ee, dee, z^ee, ga + =j^a and =gi. The =j^a, probably, is cognate with the =(k)ta in Dakotan and the =tta (< *=kta) in Omaha-Ponca. The =gi seems to be a Winnebago and Chiwere equivalent of the =di in OP (which may be cognate with the =l ~ =tu in Teton Dakotan). I notice that we are apparently lacking the fossil forms with nouns that occur in Dakotan (thiyata) or Omaha-Ponca (ttiatta). For cases with verbs, see: hac^iij^a 'where' < hac^i 'to dwell' (perhaps =ij^a ?) Of course, this verb is the one used in lieu of 'house' in Winnebago, and the root in all three cases is *hti 'to dwell; a dwelling'. I've mentioned that postpositions have a quasi-verbal character in OP. It's not that they can be inflected, but they can stand, some of them, as predicates in the third person. As far as morphological and syntactic peculiarities I had in mind the tendency of some of them to attach directly to nouns, though mostly in OP they seem to require an article (originally a verb) or a demonstrative to support them. So, you get tti=the=di 'in the house'. But that's a lot like the =ra in many of the Winnebago examples, except that Winnebago also retains the ee= demonstrative, as i c^iinaN'g-r-egi. In OP there is also a strong tendency in older texts for =di added to a noun to cause ablaut or -a- insertion, e.g., ppahe 'hill' + di => ppaha=di, or the example of ttiattha (or ttiadi) with tti 'house'. A further syntactic irregularity, and here we get into something more like the Winnebago situation, is that apart from this (older?) enclitic set of postpositions, there are (newer?) "heavy" postpositions, often begining with demonstratives, usually longer, that are typically independent, though sometimes they compound with a noun. Examples would be maNthe' 'in, under', e'gaghe 'around', or idaNbe ~ edaNbe 'center of'. Most of these can take one of the lighter postpostions themselves, e.g., maN'tha=tta 'inside of', idaNba=tta 'through the center of'. It's this last category that acts much like and is structured much like such Winnebago forms as hihag=e'j^a in the first example, from hiha'k 'top', given the hi-, perhaps originally 'its top'. I'd wonder what the problem would be with treating 'on top (of)' as a postposition in this case, though clearly there is also a whole part relationship of the sort Johannes mentions between table and top: waaru'c^ hihak= e'j^a table (its) top there table (its) top DEM=LOC Actually, given that nouns with final -e lose it, this might be, historically hihake=j^a, and reanalysis of such forms as having e(e)j^a in order to explain hihake=j^a without rsorting to allomorphy for hihak(e) might explain the strong tendency of Winnebago workers (and perhaps speakers) to handle DEM-POST combinations as monomorphemic - though I have also seen elsewhere a tendency to explain them as ee + hi-POST combinations, the latter treated as monomorphemic. Examples gaij^a suggest this is sometimes the case - today! I know that Regina Pustet has also been wrestling with the question of subtypes of postpositions, though in Dakotan, and based on considerable fieldwork and text searching. From rlundy at huntel.net Sun Jul 21 22:25:58 2002 From: rlundy at huntel.net (rlundy at huntel.net) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:25:58 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: Members; I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. Thank you. Richard C. Lundy ---- Original Message ---- From: To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, Subject: RE: Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:19:58 -0600 (MDT) > New WebMail from HunTel.net From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 22 06:57:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:57:21 -0600 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: <138580-220027021222558766@huntel.net> Message-ID: > Members; > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither would was^ic^u derived from that. As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French for asparagus. All French from memory.) I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis is offered by Buechel ... As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha languages have borrowed each others' terms. So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the fat' explanation is first attested. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jul 22 11:18:10 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:18:10 +0100 Subject: Wolverines (Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks John The Stoney one looks like a cognate. It was as you say a list of animals in Bushotter. It is in text 114, where he groups them as thalo yul uNpi 'carnivors'. In another text 105 he talks of 'starnge animals' wamakhas^saN...os^tekapi, but doen't say what they are. Possibly the sort that you get in Australia. Bruce n 17 Jul 2002, at 23:16, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word mnaja > > (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. ... I have also seen it in Riggs Dakota > > Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. ... > > I looked in the Siouan Archives files, and in various dictionaries and, > other than the Bushotter and Riggs references found only a Stoney form > mnazan. I suppose the -n is the diminutive. I think the fricative shoift > is normal. I also checked under 'lion', 'cat', and possible phonological > matches without luck. I'd expect something like *naNz^e in Dhegiha or > Ioway-Otoe, and like *naNaNs^ in Winnebago, though I also looked in > Omaha-Ponca under *bdhaNz^e and in Winnebago under *pa(N)naNs^, just in > case. > > This doesn't mean there isn't some attestation out there. > > I did notice "shanmonikasi" as a variant for 'wolf, prairie wolf, coyote' > in IO, attributed to Maximilian. > > I also think I saw the Bushotter reference in question. Interestingly, it > was a list of animals, and between 'badger' and 'lion' were ma'yas^lec^a, > s^uNkmanitu, and s^uNkmanitu thaNka. In the interlinear these were > glossed 'coyotes, wolves, and large wolves', and in the free they were > glossed 'coyotes, foxes'. > > I suppose we can take 'lion' as a way of saying (in English) 'big cat', > consistent with 'cat' as a generic preditor term. > > JEK > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jul 22 12:56:00 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:56:00 +0100 Subject: Virtues-wolves-coyotes In-Reply-To: <034401c22cea$83192db0$ae5faad0@machine> Message-ID: Alan I knew it wouldn't be a 'nice' animal. Thanks for the information Bruce 16 Jul 2002, at 12:02, Alan Knutson wrote: Just imagine a 50-100kg animal, as fast as a cat but with the > temper of a cranky badger. > > Alan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:30 AM > Subject: RE: Virtues-wolves-coyotes > > > > Interesting. Is the 'metal' term a 'maza' cognate? Whereabouts is > > the Avonlea culture? > > Bruce > > On 16 Jul 2002, at 10:24, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > > I do agree that a connection with Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in > > > > terms of the movement of these groups and the geography involved. > > > > > > Actually, it would depend on when you assumed the contact. The Apache, > or > > > some of them, were on the western Plains into the 1700s. The Spanish > > > encountered the Apache on the Plains north and east of the Pueblos. The > > > Plains Apache never left the Plains, of course. The usual ethnographic > > > assessment is that the Apache were pushed into the Southwest by the > > > Comanche entering the Plains and moving south the get better access to > > > Spanish horses. Archaeologists are still arguing as to what portion of > > > the southern Athabascans came south by way of the Plains and the Basin. > > > The Navajo are usually said to have used the Basin route. > > > > > > The northern Plains Avonlea culture is sometimes considered to be early > > > Athbascan, and it has at least one offshoot in north central Minnesota > > > sometime around 1000 AD or so - I'm not sure I remember the date > properly. > > > There is another possible lexical sharings between Athabascan and > Siouan, > > > the 'metal' term. > > > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jul 22 13:01:46 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:01:46 +0100 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: <138580-220027021222558766@huntel.net> Message-ID: Incidentally the Arabs (or Arabians at least) call us humur, which means 'red people'. The singular is hamar. Bruce On 21 Jul 2002, at 17:25, rlundy at huntel.net wrote: > Members; > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > Thank you. > > Richard C. Lundy > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, > Subject: RE: > Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:19:58 -0600 (MDT) > > > > > New WebMail from HunTel.net > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jul 22 19:06:56 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:06:56 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? Thank you, Michael McCafferty On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > > Members; > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I > know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither > would was^ic^u derived from that. > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization > of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French > for asparagus. All French from memory.) > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' > 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in > Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis > is offered by Buechel ... > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a > consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization > issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of > the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha > languages have borrowed each others' terms. > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept > the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various > explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on > annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the > annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more > historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the > fat' explanation is first attested. > > JEK > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 22 20:11:19 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:11:19 -0600 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application of the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, Omaha-Ponca 'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) s^agla's^a which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an Algonquian source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these generally resemble "espan~ol." JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 00:42:02 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:42:02 -0600 Subject: whitemen etc (fwd) Message-ID: Since most of the Caddoanists are on this list and there's no Caddoan list ... and since the patterns of adaptation and change of scope may cast light on Siouan usages. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:30:23 +0100 From: Anthony Grant To: john.koontz at colorado.edu Subject: whitemen etc Dear John: Post this to tjhe list if you think it's apposite. I checked my transcription of Randolph Barnes Marcy's Wichita vocab in 'Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana', which I made at the Bancrofft Library, UC Berkeley, in the mid-1990s. Whiteman is: E-ka'-rish ('English', also the form for whiteman in Kitsai and Caddo), Mexican is Es-ta'-he and the term for African-American is: Es-ta'he-es co'-rash, the second word co'rash being an ill-transcribed form o Wichita 'black'. Es-ta'he is possibly the same as Quapaw i$taxi and similar forms which resemble the word for 'eye'. I believe there's a similar form in Osage, and that this may be the source for the Wichita word, that they learned of whites from the Osages and that for them the archetypal white was a Mexican, but that with the advent of Angloamericans the use of the term es-ta'-he.(Marcy's spelling) later became more narrowly focussed on Mexicans rather than on all whites in general. The form for Black people as meaning what was by then (early 1850s) interpretable as 'black Mexicans' (because of the semantic narrowing of Es-ta'he) suggests this. Anthony Grant From rlundy at huntel.net Tue Jul 23 01:57:14 2002 From: rlundy at huntel.net (rlundy at huntel.net) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:57:14 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: Members; I always heard and use the term "Spa'ola" to refer to any people (as well as their foods, music, etc.) of "Hispanic" or "Latino" affiliations. Richard C. Lundy ---- Original Message ---- From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:11:19 -0600 (MDT) >On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing >was >> applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To >Britons? > >I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application >of >the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some >other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, >Omaha-Ponca >'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. > >The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) >s^agla's^a >which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an >Algonquian >source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a >ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. > >I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these >generally resemble "espan~ol." > >JEK > > New WebMail from HunTel.net From ishna00 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 23 08:23:09 2002 From: ishna00 at hotmail.com (Thode Charles) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:23:09 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: Most of the people I know from Pine Ridge have shortened "Spa'ola" to simply "Spo-la" now. C. H. Thode >From: rlundy at huntel.net >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:57:14 -0500 > > >Members; >I always heard and use the term "Spa'ola" to refer to any people (as >well as their foods, music, etc.) of "Hispanic" or "Latino" >affiliations. >Richard C. Lundy > >---- Original Message ---- >From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu, >Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:11:19 -0600 (MDT) > > >On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > >> May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing > >was > >> applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To > >Britons? > > > >I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application > >of > >the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some > >other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, > >Omaha-Ponca > >'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. > > > >The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) > >s^agla's^a > >which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an > >Algonquian > >source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a > >ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. > > > >I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these > >generally resemble "espan~ol." > > > >JEK > > > > > >New WebMail from HunTel.net _________________________________________________________________ MSN ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????. ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ? ? ????. http://photos.msn.co.kr From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jul 23 14:52:16 2002 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Sweltand) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:52:16 -0700 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: aloha all grandma elizabeth saunsoci stabler and most folks in her age group refer to spanish/mexicans as variously "hishpaiuni...hispaiuni"... perhaps from the term "Hispanic"? best uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Anthropology/Native American Studies University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? > > I don't know as I have seen a discussion of the original application of > the Dakotan term was^i'c^uN, but the Winnebago, Omaha-Ponca, and some > other terms seem to have arisen in that way. For example, Omaha-Ponca > 'Frenchman' is wa(a)'xe ukke'dhiN 'ordinary (or common) whiteman'. > > The usual terms for 'British' are comparable to Dakotan (Teton) s^agla's^a > which is probably a variant of "[le]s anglais" received from an Algonquian > source. The Algonquian source is considered to account for the -s^a > ending, which would be the diminutive/pejorative. > > I don't know the term for 'Spanish' off the top of my head, but these > generally resemble "espan~ol." > > JEK From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jul 23 14:58:59 2002 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark Awakuni-Sweltand) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:58:59 -0700 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Lecturer Anthropology/Native American Studies University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 23 14:08:29 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:08:29 -0700 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: Not surprisingly, Algonquian has the same set of 'Espagnol'/'Espa?ol' terms for 'Mexican'/'Spaniard': Miami /iihpaawala/~/iihpaayoolwa/ Oklahoma Ottawa /eshpayoo/ Menominee /E:spayo:w/ Unami /spa'nayu/ Gros Ventre /?isibe'yoouh/ Shawnee /spaani/ looks like it might actually be from English 'Spaniard'; not too surprising, since Shawnee lacks most of the French loans that the other Central languages have. Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name for the country. Dave Costa From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Jul 23 18:37:32 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:37:32 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > Not surprisingly, Algonquian has the same set of 'Espagnol'/'Espa?ol' terms > for 'Mexican'/'Spaniard': > Shawnee /spaani/ looks like it might actually be from English 'Spaniard'; > not too surprising, since Shawnee lacks most of the French loans that the > other Central languages have. Problem is, the Shawnee were trading on the Atlantic Coast of Florida or South Carolina very early, I'll have to check, but prior to their contact with English traders further north. > > Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the > town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was > /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name > for the country. > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, post diaspora. Michael McCafferty From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 19:10:44 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:10:44 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <002601c23259$79a79860$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mark Awakuni-Sweltand wrote: > I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln > Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for > whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity > for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to > "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. I believe wa + gaghe would normally contract to wa(a)'ghe, like dative gi + gaghe contracts to giaghe. This conracting behavior seems to come from the ga-instrumental stems, but it is regular with gaghe and gaNze, too. The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. On the other hand, speakers all come up with the 'makes things' or 'maker' explanation, and something like this may apply to one one of the Winnebago forms ('worker') and maybe the IO form, too. Maybe Dorsey misheard the fricative in the word and just wrote it consistently wrong. Something that gives me pause here is the way the Ponca nuxe clan gets reanalyzed as 'ice' (naNghe?) though comparative evidence suggests the name here is an old term for 'reddish-yellow bison' attested as a clan name in other Dhegiha groups. In other words, people tend to fix things so that they make sense, even if the sense is an innovation. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 19:24:25 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:24:25 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter > (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat > confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., > with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. It seems to me that there are a couple of near homophones for gaghe, which actually are gaxe - something like 'branch (of a stream)' and/or 'comb', maybe? Even if I have the glosses and stem forms correct, these don't seem to be a lot of help ... 'maker' seems to me to make more sense than 'comber' or 'brancher'. I've wondered if the form was borrowed, but I've never encountered any plausible sources. The closest I could come up with was actually monsieur, but is'a bit of a step from ?mas^e to waxe or waghe. I think one of the Missouri River area Siouan languages does have ?mas^i or ?was^i something like that. I'll try to look it up. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 23 20:00:42 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:00:42 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms and Trickster terms. Message-ID: > It seems to me that there are a couple of near homophones for gaghe, which > actually are gaxe - something like 'branch (of a stream)' That's /gaxa'/ 'creek, branch'. The accent and final V are different. I don't know about length. > and/or 'comb', For the Kaws, that's /gaphe'/, I think. > maybe? Even if I have the glosses and stem forms correct, these don't > seem to be a lot of help ... 'maker' seems to me to make more sense than > 'comber' or 'brancher'. I think you hit it on the head when you pointed out that it has /x/ instead of /gh/. So right now, all we have is folk etymologies and linguists' folk etymologies. :-) BTW, in the discussion of the trickster and spider names, the Osage and Kaw term, /cci/e xop/be/ probably doesn't have anything to do with /xop/be/ 'sacred, holy'. It is much more likely that it relates to the verb /ixop/be/ 'to tell lies, deceive'. The /cc(e)/ part remains a mystery to me, as I don't buy into 'lying buffalo cow'. Bob From tleonard at prodigy.net Tue Jul 23 20:30:13 2002 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:30:13 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: Thought I'd chime in on this one....... I've heard from more than one Ponca source over the years that the term for "white man" (wa'xe) was derived from wana'xe (spirit or ghost). The folk etymology typically given was "Those old folks called them that because they were pale and looked like ghosts....they were afraid of those people when they first saw them" (that's a quote from a tape of the late Bessie LeClaire). There does seem to be some correlation. I've noted several names in Ponca and Omaha where "wa'xe" was interpreted as "ghost" (e.g. Ma'chu Wa'xe - "ghost bear"....very definitely NOT interpreted as "bear maker"). I've seen similar abbreviations in the everyday use of "wa'xe sa'be" (black man). Often it's shortened to "we'a sabe" (very commonly used) or sometimes wa'sabe or waa'sabe. Wa'sabe ("black bear") will sometimes get a chuckle from a listener. But when I've questioned it, the response is very often: "yeah.....but I knew what he meant". I've asked how come you don't use "wa'xe sabe" and, nearly always, the response has been "that's the way grandpa used to talk". Also (from an earlier post) the Ponca word shpa-u-ni is typically translated a "Mexican". Regards, Tom Leonard > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mark Awakuni-Sweltand wrote: > > I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln > > Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for > > whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity > > for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to > > "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. > > I believe wa + gaghe would normally contract to wa(a)'ghe, like dative gi > + gaghe contracts to giaghe. This conracting behavior seems to come from > the ga-instrumental stems, but it is regular with gaghe and gaNze, too. > > The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter > (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat > confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., > with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. > > On the other hand, speakers all come up with the 'makes things' or 'maker' > explanation, and something like this may apply to one one of the Winnebago > forms ('worker') and maybe the IO form, too. Maybe Dorsey misheard the > fricative in the word and just wrote it consistently wrong. > > Something that gives me pause here is the way the Ponca nuxe clan gets > reanalyzed as 'ice' (naNghe?) though comparative evidence suggests the > name here is an old term for 'reddish-yellow bison' attested as a clan > name in other Dhegiha groups. In other words, people tend to fix things > so that they make sense, even if the sense is an innovation. > > JEK > From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 23 21:26:24 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:26:24 +0100 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: Regarding Tom Leonard's posting: white foks were regarded as being ghost-like by members of quite a few cultures, including several who learned to their cost that these pale people weren't their ancestors who had returned. This is true of some Polynesian groups (the usual term for white people in Polynesian languages means, or is interpreted as, 'people who've come over from the skies'). I can well believe that early Dhegiha-speakers called white kaxe because they were impressed at the kinds of wonderful things they could make, and that later on, people who hadn't seen some of the technological tricks with which whites often purposely set out to impress others, though that 'ghost' was what had been meant, because 'maker' ('craftsman'??) didn't make immediate sense to them. It all ties in with the use of the same terms in some languages for trickster and culture hero and also whiteman (this is the case, I believe, in Arapaho). As to 'black bear', the Osage or Ponca form (I'm not sure which) has been borrowed into Comanche as a normal term for black bear. Armagost and Wistrand-Robinson's Comanche dictionary gives the form as wasa'pe with an underlined e. I don't know US ecology too well: would black bears have lived away from the original Comanche homeland, I wonder, so as to necessitate the borrowing of the term? Do they have blakc bears in Utah or wherever the Comanches set out from in the 18th century? This is a fascinating list! I would have commented on the Helmbrecht paper except that IJAL's arrival in Britain is so often delayed that I haven't seen it yet! Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Leonard To: Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Ethnic Terms > Thought I'd chime in on this one....... > > I've heard from more than one Ponca source over the years that the term for > "white man" (wa'xe) was derived from wana'xe (spirit or ghost). The folk > etymology typically given was "Those old folks called them that because they > were pale and looked like ghosts....they were afraid of those people when > they first saw them" (that's a quote from a tape of the late Bessie > LeClaire). > > There does seem to be some correlation. I've noted several names in Ponca > and Omaha where "wa'xe" was interpreted as "ghost" (e.g. Ma'chu Wa'xe - > "ghost bear"....very definitely NOT interpreted as "bear maker"). > > I've seen similar abbreviations in the everyday use of "wa'xe sa'be" (black > man). Often it's shortened to "we'a sabe" (very commonly used) or sometimes > wa'sabe or waa'sabe. Wa'sabe ("black bear") will sometimes get a chuckle > from a listener. But when I've questioned it, the response is very often: > "yeah.....but I knew what he meant". I've asked how come you don't use > "wa'xe sabe" and, nearly always, the response has been "that's the way > grandpa used to talk". > > Also (from an earlier post) the Ponca word shpa-u-ni is typically translated > a "Mexican". > > Regards, > Tom Leonard > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mark Awakuni-Sweltand wrote: > > > I recall that in one of the 1971 Omaha Language classes at the Lincoln > > > Indian Center, Elizabeth Stabler suggested the word "waxe" for > > > whiteman might have something to do with the white guy's propensity > > > for "making things." At the time I figured she was linking "waxe" to > > > "gaxe, paxe..." to make, I make, etc. > > > > I believe wa + gaghe would normally contract to wa(a)'ghe, like dative gi > > + gaghe contracts to giaghe. This conracting behavior seems to come from > > the ga-instrumental stems, but it is regular with gaghe and gaNze, too. > > > > The only problem would be that Dorsey writes wa'qe, i.e., with the letter > > (q) that represents the voiceless fricative. The issue is somewhat > > confused by the fact that Dorsey wrote q : x for x : gamma (or gh), i.e., > > with the use of x reversed. And LaFlesche just wrote x for both. > > > > On the other hand, speakers all come up with the 'makes things' or 'maker' > > explanation, and something like this may apply to one one of the Winnebago > > forms ('worker') and maybe the IO form, too. Maybe Dorsey misheard the > > fricative in the word and just wrote it consistently wrong. > > > > Something that gives me pause here is the way the Ponca nuxe clan gets > > reanalyzed as 'ice' (naNghe?) though comparative evidence suggests the > > name here is an old term for 'reddish-yellow bison' attested as a clan > > name in other Dhegiha groups. In other words, people tend to fix things > > so that they make sense, even if the sense is an innovation. > > > > JEK > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 23 21:49:40 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:49:40 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <001c01c2328f$fae4b580$eedd7ad5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > ... As to 'black bear', the Osage or Ponca form (I'm not sure which) > has been borrowed into Comanche as a normal term for black bear. > Armagost and Wistrand-Robinson's Comanche dictionary gives the form as > wasa'pe with an underlined e. I don't know US ecology too well: would > black bears have lived away from the original Comanche homeland, I > wonder, so as to necessitate the borrowing of the term? Do they have > blakc bears in Utah or wherever the Comanches set out from in the 18th > century? My recollection is that black bears are (a) as often as not some shade other than black, e.g., brown, and (b) pretty much everywhere in North America. Grizzlies were first encountered on the Plains, and apparently didn't extend west of the Mississippi. The easiest distinguishing feature, apart from average size, is the nose. The black bear is roman nosed, like the polar bear, while the grizzly has a dished in, or high-browed face. The folk lore on distinguishing the two is to annoy the bear and then climb a tree. If the bear follows you up the tree it's a black bear. If it tried to knock the tree down it's a grizzly. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Jul 24 04:39:03 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:39:03 -0700 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: >> Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the >> town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was >> /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name >> for the country. > > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, > post diaspora. Oh, I know. I'm assuming Mexico, Indiana got its name around the same time as for the same reasons as the nearby Peru, Indiana (location of the office of the Miami Nation of Indiana), Chili, Indiana, and Jalapa, Indiana. David From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 24 12:08:37 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:08:37 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quite likely. Yes. On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > >> Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the > >> town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was > >> /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name > >> for the country. > > > > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, > > post diaspora. > > Oh, I know. I'm assuming Mexico, Indiana got its name around the same time > as for the same reasons as the nearby Peru, Indiana (location of the office > of the Miami Nation of Indiana), Chili, Indiana, and Jalapa, Indiana. > > David > > > Michael McCafferty 307 Memorial Hall Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 mmccaffe at indiana.edu "Talking is often a torment for me, and I need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. C.G. Jung "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." Rumi From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 24 15:21:05 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:21:05 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <001901c23287$c1238720$a4ad3841@Busprod.Com> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Tom Leonard wrote: > I've heard from more than one Ponca source over the years that the term for > "white man" (wa'xe) was derived from wana'xe (spirit or ghost). The folk > etymology typically given was ... This is interesting, because (a) 'ghost' or 'spirit' based names are actually fairly common, as I think Tony pointed out, and (b) elisions of r- and y-like things between vowels are fairly common in fast speech in Siouan languages, e.g., e'ge for e'gidhe in Omaha. Also (c) the observation on names certainly seems confirmatory: > There does seem to be some correlation. I've noted several names in Ponca > and Omaha where "wa'xe" was interpreted as "ghost" (e.g. Ma'chu Wa'xe - > "ghost bear"....very definitely NOT interpreted as "bear maker"). On the other hand, stem initial n's usually seem a bit more resistant to this sort of elision - I can't think of any other examples, anyway - and I think the fricative is still different, i.e., I think it may be wana(N)'ghe in an orthography that distinguishes the two. I'll check. > I've seen similar abbreviations in the everyday use of "wa'xe sa'be" (black > man). Often it's shortened to "we'a sabe" (very commonly used) or sometimes > wa'sabe or waa'sabe. Wa'sabe ("black bear") will sometimes get a chuckle > from a listener. ... Loss of obstruents before an unaccented final -e is also pretty common, though I think mainly in Dhegiha, wasae or wasa for wasabe, for example. I think of this as occurring more in Osage and Kansa, though. I've never been clear on why and when this occurs. JEK From jmcbride at kayserv.net Wed Jul 24 15:39:05 2002 From: jmcbride at kayserv.net (Justin McBride) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:39:05 -0500 Subject: Ethnic Terms Message-ID: > Regarding Tom Leonard's posting: white foks were regarded as being > ghost-like by members of quite a few cultures, including several who learned > to their cost that these pale people weren't their ancestors who had > returned. This is true of some Polynesian groups (the usual term for white > people in Polynesian languages means, or is interpreted as, 'people who've > come over from the skies'). Dumb question... Are ghosts in Siouan culture thought of as pale or white? I assume that the color of a ghost--at least in western culture--is supposed to be indicative of the loss of color in the features of a corpse. Obviously the wanaNghe isn't the white-sheeted, chain-rattling, image so stylistically indigenous to Europe. But is it even white? JM From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 15:48:10 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:48:10 +0100 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: <003e01c23328$3e665f00$3777f0c7@Language> Message-ID: I can only tell you that in Lakota stories ghost women are invisible from the legs down or possibly have no legs. Hence when they walk their skirts do not rustle. So be careful if you meet any of these silent walking women. Bruce On 24 Jul 2002, at 10:39, Justin McBride wrote: > > > > > Regarding Tom Leonard's posting: white foks were regarded as being > > ghost-like by members of quite a few cultures, including several who > learned > > to their cost that these pale people weren't their ancestors who had > > returned. This is true of some Polynesian groups (the usual term for > white > > people in Polynesian languages means, or is interpreted as, 'people > who've > > come over from the skies'). > > Dumb question... > > Are ghosts in Siouan culture thought of as pale or white? I assume that the > color of a ghost--at least in western culture--is supposed to be indicative > of the loss of color in the features of a corpse. Obviously the wanaNghe > isn't the white-sheeted, chain-rattling, image so stylistically indigenous > to Europe. But is it even white? > > JM > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 16:24:40 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:24:40 +0100 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. Maybe mi'c^[h]aksic^a is also the real origin of mayas^lec^a by a sporadic sound change. Bruce Bruce On 16 Jul 2002, at 23:59, Koontz John E wrote: > OK, I can explain the -si's and maybe the miNh, too. JEK > > I see that Buechel gives mi'c^[h]aksic^a 'a small wolf'. Williams > gives mi'c^[h]a, and mi'c^[h]aksic^a, for 'coyote'. Riggs gives both > forms with the gloss 'a small species of wolf'. I suspect Buechel's > listing is from Riggs. > > Incidentally, what is the distribution of ksic^a as 'small' in Dakotan? > This is probably the explanation of the -si in Dhegiha, since *ksika > > *sika. > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 16:40:33 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:40:33 +0100 Subject: wild cats etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 18 Jul 2002, at 13:27, Koontz John E wrote: I must admit I've always preferred the 'spirit' interpretation of was^icu. It doen't mean that the Native Americans really thought we were spirits, but they may have thought we looked like them. Back in the Middle East the Persian referred to westerners as c^es^m zaag^ which means 'light blue or grey eyed'. It is not a coincidence I think that Jinns or Spirits were also thought to be c^es^m zaag^ I am signing off today and going to Saudi arabia for a couple of weeks. Wish you all a good summer. I have found the 'wolves, coyotes etc' v. stimulating. Bruce > > In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, > suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals > fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people > object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, > and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic > ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not > sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota > person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism > doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. > (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 16:50:44 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:50:44 +0100 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have always presumed that it applied first to Frenchmen, who were the first the Lakotas or Dakotas met. For that very reason other 'white men' have specific names, while the French don't i.e. Mila HaNska 'American', S^aglas^a, Ogles^a 'British', Spayola 'Mexican'. Bruce On 22 Jul 2002, at 14:06, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? > > Thank you, > > Michael McCafferty > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > Members; > > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I > > know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - > > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this > > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of > > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor > > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. > > > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, > > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - > > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the > > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither > > would was^ic^u derived from that. > > > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural > > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, > > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. > > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, > > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization > > of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , > > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent > > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion > > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of > > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, > > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two > > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals > > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French > > for asparagus. All French from memory.) > > > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' > > 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in > > Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis > > is offered by Buechel ... > > > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a > > consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization > > issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay > > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand > > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. > > > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the > > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be > > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., > > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering > > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of > > the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the > > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' > > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha > > languages have borrowed each others' terms. > > > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept > > the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently > > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various > > explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on > > annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and > > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the > > annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it > > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. > > > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists > > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they > > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when > > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its > > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that > > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. > > > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more > > historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the > > fat' explanation is first attested. > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > 307 Memorial Hall > Indiana University > Bloomington, Indiana > 47405 > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > C.G. Jung > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > Rumi > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 24 17:03:27 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:03:27 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: <3D3EE2D8.25814.316111@localhost> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is > also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. I suspect so, though I can think ofa folk explanation or two that would ignore the k. The -ksik- (Da ksic^a) 'small' stem shows up here and there. Lipkind points out ksik in Winnebago as a sort of diminutive, and the coyote set I posted seems to have it throughout MV, though in many cases reduced to -si or -i. It may mean 'slender' or 'gracile' or something like that instead. > Maybe mi'c^[h]aksic^a is also the real origin of mayas^lec^a by a > sporadic sound change. I'll have to leave that to the Dakotanists. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jul 24 17:51:27 2002 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:51:27 +0100 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It also resemnbles the 'jump' root -psic^a- Bruce On 24 Jul 2002, at 11:03, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is > > also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. > > I suspect so, though I can think ofa folk explanation or two that would > ignore the k. The -ksik- (Da ksic^a) 'small' stem shows up here and > there. Lipkind points out ksik in Winnebago as a sort of diminutive, and > the coyote set I posted seems to have it throughout MV, though in many > cases reduced to -si or -i. It may mean 'slender' or 'gracile' or > something like that instead. > > > Maybe mi'c^[h]aksic^a is also the real origin of mayas^lec^a by a > > sporadic sound change. > > I'll have to leave that to the Dakotanists. > > JEK > Dr. Bruce Ingham Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies SOAS From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Jul 24 19:20:30 2002 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:20:30 -0500 Subject: Mexico, Indiana and Some Siouan place names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's the story on Mexico, Indiana, and it is a rather unique one locally in its Miami language form, which Dave noted. The name was created for the Indiana village by English-speaking American settlers in 1834 to celebrate the independence of Mexico from Spain. At a time when the Miami language was still quite alive in Indiana, the Miami appear to have translated "Mexico" into their own term for the country. Hence, the coincidence. Dave also mentioned Jalapa, Indiana. From Nahuatl /Sa:la:paN/ 'sandwater-in'. It's a Mexican-American war time creation from the late 1840s. In addition to its many place names created by local native peoples, Indiana also has a truly vast array of native place names that were borrowed into the local English-speaking namescape from tribes that did not live here. Northern Iroquoian place names are the most numerous of this type. The ostensibly Siouan ones include: Anoka, Winona, and the translation Red Cloud. Michael McCafferty On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Quite likely. Yes. > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > > > > > >> Amusingly, Albert Gatschet's notes point out that the Miami name for the > > >> town of Mexico, Indiana (I have no idea why it's called that) was > > >> /iihpaawalonki/, literally 'place of Mexicans', the same as the Miami name > > >> for the country. > > > > > > It probably means what it says and is likely a "new" Miami place name, > > > post diaspora. > > > > Oh, I know. I'm assuming Mexico, Indiana got its name around the same time > > as for the same reasons as the nearby Peru, Indiana (location of the office > > of the Miami Nation of Indiana), Chili, Indiana, and Jalapa, Indiana. > > > > David > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > 307 Memorial Hall > Indiana University > Bloomington, Indiana > 47405 > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > C.G. Jung > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > Rumi > > > > > 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 ". --Rumi From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 24 19:32:09 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:32:09 -0500 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] Message-ID: > > I was interested to hear about -sic^a for 'small'. Presumably this is > > also the explanantion of mag^aksic^a 'duck'. > I suspect so, though I can think ofa folk explanation or two that would > ignore the k. The -ksik- (Da ksic^a) 'small' stem shows up here and > there. Lipkind points out ksik in Winnebago as a sort of diminutive,... This is interesting. I got QU /nikka-$ika/ and, I think, Kaw /nikka-$iga/ for 'man, person' or in the term for 'clan' (Dorsey 'gens') several times. At the time, I assumed I had somehow missed nasalization or that it had been omitted accidentally, and that it was a variant pronunciation of /z^iNk/ga/, the usual 'small' term. This would now seem not to be so. Looks like /sika/, /$ika/ (where's xika?) is a distinct term and more than just a sporadic sound change. Bob From daynal at nsula.edu Wed Jul 24 21:38:20 2002 From: daynal at nsula.edu (Dayna Bowker Lee) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:38:20 -0700 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota Message-ID: I have greatly enjoyed following the threads of this discussion. With the caveat that I am not a linguist, I have a couple of bits of information that might be of interest. The Caddo term used for little people - yahyashattsi? or ha'yasatsi, Parsons (Reichard) associates with "lost." More precisely, I suppose, "lost" + diminutive. In Caddo oral tradition, a group of Alabama were said to have been encountered by the Caddo and told them, "We're lost." This group came to be known as ku'yushsahdah (Coushatta). Kuuwi yushsahdah is "I'm lost." The word for ghost is kahayu or kuyu, which may be derived from hakayu (white). ??n-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people now, but began as a designation for an English person. There were specific terms for each of the dominant groups of white people that the Caddo dealt with during the historic period. A Mexican or Spanish person = ?ispayun. A French person = kah-nuush. Although ?ispayun certainly seems like a Spanish cognate, I don't know the origins of the Caddo words for English and French people. Dayna Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota > I have always presumed that it applied first to Frenchmen, who > were the first the Lakotas or Dakotas met. For that very reason > other 'white men' have specific names, while the French don't i.e. > Mila HaNska 'American', S^aglas^a, Ogles^a 'British', Spayola > 'Mexican'. > > Bruce > On 22 Jul 2002, at 14:06, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was > > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Michael McCafferty > > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > > > Members; > > > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In > > > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no > > > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but not > > > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of > > > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said > > > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo > > > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide, > > > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival, > > > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot. > > > > > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I > > > know: was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus ic^u - > > > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'. I believe that this > > > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u. That is, I assume the nasality of > > > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out toor > > > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u. > > > > > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the term, > > > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally see - > > > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having the > > > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither > > > would was^ic^u derived from that. > > > > > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only structural > > > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis. In regard to this, however, > > > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common today. > > > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past, too, > > > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the nasalization > > > of final vowels is common. I know that at least some enclitics -s^i , > > > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent > > > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics. My suspicion > > > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of > > > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in language, > > > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass. (Two > > > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the originals > > > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise - French > > > for asparagus. All French from memory.) > > > > > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in Powers' > > > 1986 book Sacred Language: the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in > > > Lakota. I should probably have noticed that essentially the same analysis > > > is offered by Buechel ... > > > > > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a > > > consideration of plausabilities. He may have discussed the nasalization > > > issue, too, I think. I recall noticing that though he made some hay > > > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to understand > > > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough. > > > > > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the > > > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form. I would be > > > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area, e.g., > > > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes. I'm wondering > > > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque of > > > the Winnebago one. In the same way there is some possibility that the > > > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker' > > > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly Dhegiha > > > languages have borrowed each others' terms. > > > > > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan accept > > > the 'he takes the fat' analysis. I also suspect linguists, and apparently > > > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though various > > > explanations are offered. In general, one suspects etymologies based on > > > annecdotes. The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala and > > > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course. Sometimes the > > > annecdote points the way. It is not folk etymologies that are wrong - it > > > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong. > > > > > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists > > > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when they > > > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view, when > > > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its > > > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something that > > > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish. > > > > > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more > > > historical sense. It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the > > > fat' explanation is first attested. > > > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael McCafferty > > 307 Memorial Hall > > Indiana University > > Bloomington, Indiana > > 47405 > > mmccaffe at indiana.edu > > > > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I > > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words. > > C.G. Jung > > > > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk." > > Rumi > > > > > > > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 24 19:41:26 2002 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:41:26 -0600 Subject: Siouan place names out of place? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The discussion about Indiana inspires me to ask you all about a place I drove through last week in northern Oklahoma -- Watonga. It's Cheyenne-Arapahoe country (after it became Indian territory, of course), but it sure looks to me like it should be from a Dhegiha language and mean something like 'big stuff'. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From shanwest at uvic.ca Wed Jul 24 20:42:30 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:42:30 -0700 Subject: flat structures Message-ID: 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 rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 24 21:13:13 2002 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:13:13 -0600 Subject: flat structures In-Reply-To: <000601c23352$b94a8a00$6436688e@macdonald> Message-ID: Shannon, it's a somewhat different version of the paradigm, but my paper on upstairs and downstairs deletion back in CLS 1973 (You take the high node and I'll take the low node, paravolume to CLS 9) presumes a configurational structure. Of course in those days there was no such distinction -- everything was presumed configurational. However, those tree structures might provide evidence for arguing one way or the other. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > 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 are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Wed Jul 24 22:11:17 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:11:17 -0400 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe waxe is from vacher 'cowboy'? Which would also give it a negative connotation (vache 'nasty')? WEll, it was probably coined before cowboys.. BTW African American in Omaha is 'black whiteman.' -Ardis From shanwest at uvic.ca Wed Jul 24 23:43:09 2002 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:43:09 -0700 Subject: flat structures In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Oh excellent! I have that volume thanks to John Boyle. :) Gives me some nice reading for the evening. Thanks. Shannon > -----Original Message----- > From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.colorado.edu] > Sent: July 24, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Shannon West > Cc: Siouan (E-mail) > Subject: Re: flat structures > > > > Shannon, it's a somewhat different version of the paradigm, but my paper > on upstairs and downstairs deletion back in CLS 1973 (You take the high > node and I'll take the low node, paravolume to CLS 9) presumes a > configurational structure. Of course in those days there was no such > distinction -- everything was presumed configurational. However, those > tree structures might provide evidence for arguing one way or the other. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.colorado.edu] > Sent: July 24, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Shannon West > Cc: Siouan (E-mail) > Subject: Re: flat structures > > > > Shannon, it's a somewhat different version of the paradigm, but my paper > on upstairs and downstairs deletion back in CLS 1973 (You take the high > node and I'll take the low node, paravolume to CLS 9) presumes a > configurational structure. Of course in those days there was no such > distinction -- everything was presumed configurational. However, those > tree structures might provide evidence for arguing one way or the other. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Shannon West wrote: > > > 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 John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 06:06:53 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:06:53 -0600 Subject: Branch, Comb, Sacred. Deceive (Re: Ethnic Terms and Trickster terms) In-Reply-To: <007901c23283$a1ed8e40$e1b5ed81@robertra> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > Koontz> It seems to me that there are a couple of near homophones for > gaghe, which actually are gaxe - something like 'branch (of a stream)' > > That's /gaxa'/ 'creek, branch'. The accent and final V are different. > I don't know about length. Dorsey has xdhabe' gaxa' ge 'the scattered treee branches' (tree branch the-scattered) and gaxa'xa 'with many branches' in the texts, but I know the form gaxa' (to correct it per Bob) referring to 'creek' occurs elsewhere in Dorsey's materials. The texts also have gaxa' 'to go beyond' and gaxa'=tta 'to the side'. Especially interesting is dhi'?e gaxa' 'half the body' which appears to be literally 'flank(s) beyond', but that makes sense because the context is 'eating half the body' (in an eating contest). > > and/or 'comb', > > For the Kaws, that's /gaphe'/, I think. Yes, it's h < *ph in OP, (gi)gahe 'to comb (for someone)'. A 'comb' is mikka'he, which looks like it might be related, but the pattern is unusual, whatever it is! > BTW, in the discussion of the trickster and spider names, the Osage > and Kaw term, /cci/e xop/be/ probably doesn't have anything to do with > /xop/be/ 'sacred, holy'. It is much more likely that it relates to > the verb /ixop/be/ 'to tell lies, deceive'. The /cc(e)/ part remains > a mystery to me, as I don't buy into 'lying buffalo cow'. OP has i'...usis^taN 'to tell lies', and u's^i=...khidhe 'to deceive' (or u's^i=...kkidhe 'to deceive oneself' (dative and reflexive causatives), so I wasn't prepared for that one! I also found wawe'kkittatta 'a deceiver', which may shed light on Quapaw homittatta 'trickster'. So, to conclude this section, there really aren't any convenient near homophones to gaghe 'to make' that would explain wa(a)'xe 'whiteman' and also explain the different fricative there. If it were *wa(a)'xa, it might be 'outsider, one from beyond', I guess. But it isn't. Incidentally, to resolve a point on which I was unclear a while ago, in Omaha-Ponca it is xube' 'sacred, mysterious, wonderful, awe-inspiring', with at least the derivatives dhaxu'be 'to speak in wonder, to express wonder' and waxu'be 'sacred thing'. And waxu'be can be used a modifier, e.g., tti' waxu'be 'sacred tent' or aN'ba waxu'be 'sacred day, Sunday'. I can't find xube (accented maybe xu'be) '(a) drunk' anywhere, but I'm pretty sure I remember it in use. Swetland/Stabler gives xube (accent not indicated) as 'hallowed; holy; wizard'. For 'drunk' in the same source there's dadhiN 'to intoxicate; intoxicated; drunk'. There is dhaxu' maybe dhaghu' (can't tell in the source S/S) 'to suck', which is part of this last set. (I can't find *ghube either in the texts, by the way.) The root *xep ~ *xop ~ *ghop ~ *gho 'to suck' is widely attested in Mississippi Valley, and occurs also in Southeastern (as *xp) and in at least Hidatsa in the NW. This is presumably the connection in 'drunk', though it's possible that 'wizard' is involved. Intoxication is widely regarded elsewhere in the world as a sacred or at least mystery-involving state. The 'suck' sense may also be connected to 'to lie', though it's also possible that there's a connection to the 'sacred' set. Since 'to lie' involves the i-locative, that the sense of the root xobe ~ xope isn't precisely clear. I wouldn't consider it impossible that 'deceit' might have a 'sacred' or 'divine' association. Essentially that's what Trickster embodies. The sacred is not always a positive thing; sometimes it's strange and terrible and destructive. I suppose 'sacred' might also occur in 'lie' by way of a euphemism. However, on the whole, it seems safer to think of three or four similar roots here until we've done a lot more spade work. I don't have a clue as to what the *tti or *tte (c^c^i or c^c^e in Kaw) is on the front of 'Trickster' in Kaw either. Could this c^c^e- be from *s^Re (OP s^ne-, Os sce-)? Not that I can see how that helps, either. INde (iNj^e ?) is 'face'. Ine'gi (ij^egi ?) is 'uncle'. These could be truncated, but the series is wrong for c^c^e - they produce j^e. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 07:18:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:18:46 -0600 Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman Message-ID: Spider, Trickster and whiteman in Crow, Hidatsa, and Manda, as far as I can determine them at present. spider Trickster whiteman Cr awa'kooxe Isa'ahkawuattee baaishtashi'ile 'Causasian' 'Old Man Coyote' ishbi'tchiihachkite 'Frenchman' Lowie gives ba:ictsi'n 'white man' (adapting his notation to ASCII) (c = s^). He gives i:sahkupe' 'trickster'. isahkupe: 'tricky', which seems to be the first element in 'Old Man Coyote' here, or a superset of it. The first part of 'tciskter' might match Lowie's isa:'ka, which seems to be a term for 'mother or father; parent'. Bu'attee is 'coyote', which is the second element here (wuattee in context), so the whole is something like 'tricky coyote'. Hi ??? ??? was^i' [mas^i'] Mitapa is 'tricky'. Itaka is 'old man' (or 'elder'?). Matthews mentions itakatetas^ 'Old Man Immortal' as a deity < ita'ka 'old man' + te 'die' + ta NEG + s^ DEF. The itaka might match Cr isa:'ka (isaahka?). The 'whiteman' term is said to have originally applied to the French and Canadians who are now mas^i'kahti 'true whites'. Ma waN'xtiriNka ??? waNs^i' maN'xtiniNka maNs^i' 'little rabbit' I think 'Trickster' = 'Whiteman', but this isn't stated in Hollow. A couple of interesting derivatives of 'whiteman' in that context: waNs^i' xopiriN 'doctor' (sacred whiteman) waNs^i' oxka 'clown' (foolish whiteman) Of course, these could refer exclusively to 'medical doctor' and 'circus clown', but the terms 'doctor' and 'clown' have traditional uses in connection with describing Plains culture - 'traditional doctor, magician' and 'clown' (in dances and ritual) that might be associated with Trickster. Note also waNs^i psi 'African American' (black whiteman) John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 07:23:55 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:23:55 -0600 Subject: Ethnic Terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > ... I think the fricative is still different, i.e., I think it may be > wana(N)'ghe in an orthography that distinguishes the two. I'll check. Dorsey gives wana'ghi 'ghost'. There is a tendency for his occasional final -i to merge with final -e in LaFlesche's and more modern tranascriptions, e.g., ppaNghi ~ ppaNghe 'Jerusalem artichoke'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 07:52:58 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:52:58 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: <002901c23348$cf5dfb60$c0b5ed81@robertra> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > This is interesting. I got QU /nikka-$ika/ and, I > think, Kaw /nikka-$iga/ for 'man, person' or in the > term for 'clan' (Dorsey 'gens') several times. At the > time, I assumed I had somehow missed nasalization or > that it had been omitted accidentally, and that it was > a variant pronunciation of /z^iNk/ga/, the usual > 'small' term. This would now seem not to be so. Looks > like /sika/, /$ika/ (where's xika?) is a distinct term > and more than just a sporadic sound change. I looked further in OP and found maN'hiN 'knife' :: maN'hiNsi 'arrow head' ppa 'head' :: ppasi' 'tip; top of tree' kkaNde 'plum' :: kkaNsi 'plum stone' (This is probably *su 'kernel, seed') I think there's some evidence that the -si in OP maN'hiNsi is historically *ksi, as many languages show *maNksi for 'arrow head'. JEK From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jul 25 13:37:10 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:37:10 EDT Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman Message-ID: I've been gone for a week and have 185 e-mails to deal with, most of which I haven't read yet. But since I opened this one... Isa'ahkawuattee is composed of isa'ahka 'old man' + bu'attaa 'coyote'. Isahkupe'e 'tricky' won't work because of the vowel length: it has a short 'a' where isa'ahka has a long 'a'. Randy From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jul 25 14:43:24 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:43:24 -0500 Subject: Sacred. Deceive Message-ID: > I also found wawe'kkittatta 'a deceiver', which may shed light on > Quapaw homittatta 'trickster'. Just FYI, I think it's also Quapaw 'monkey' in modern times. > I can't find xube (accented maybe xu'be) '(a) drunk' anywhere, but I'm > pretty sure I remember it in use. Yeah, I think that's the modern, colloquial usage. > There is dhaxu' maybe dhaghu' (can't tell in the source S/S) 'to suck', > which is part of this last set. (I can't find *ghube either in the texts, > by the way.) The root *xep ~ *xop ~ *ghop ~ *gho 'to suck' is widely > attested in Mississippi Valley, That's the Dakotan 'snore' root too. > This is presumably the connection in 'drunk', though it's possible that 'wizard' is >involved. Intoxication is widely regarded elsewhere in the world as a sacred or at least > mystery-involving state. I wonder if it has anything to do with taking wine in comunion? > The 'suck' sense may also be connected to 'to lie', though it's also > possible that there's a connection to the 'sacred' set. Since 'to lie' > involves the i-locative, that the sense of the root xobe ~ xope isn't > precisely clear. I wouldn't consider it impossible that 'deceit' might > have a 'sacred' or 'divine' association. Essentially that's what > Trickster embodies. The sacred is not always a positive thing; sometimes > it's strange and terrible and destructive. I suppose 'sacred' might also > occur in 'lie' by way of a euphemism. However, on the whole, it seems > safer to think of three or four similar roots here until we've done a lot > more spade work. And it's a stative verb too. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 16:24:14 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:24:14 -0600 Subject: PMV 'coyote' [was RE: coyotes] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote: > kkaNde 'plum' :: kkaNsi 'plum stone' (This is probably *su 'kernel, seed') Incidentally, this is another example of the 'truncating stem' pattern of compound. Presumably kkaNsi < *hkaNt-su. Maybe kkaN'de < *hkaNt-e, though there are certainly other ways to look at it, that don't require e to be treated as a morpheme (of whatever origin). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 25 16:27:11 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:27:11 -0600 Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman In-Reply-To: <4d.2192679c.2a715906@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > Isa'ahkawuattee is composed of isa'ahka 'old man' + bu'attaa 'coyote'. > Isahkupe'e 'tricky' won't work because of the vowel length: it has a short > 'a' where isa'ahka has a long 'a'. Out of curiosity, what might the analysis of isahkupe'e be? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 26 05:14:38 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 23:14:38 -0600 Subject: another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: [Example from text in Lipkind, retranscribed and analyzed.] > ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra ware=hu'= iNgigi' ]=ra > o grandmother father my DEF work come he made me his own DEF > > tuuxu'ruk= s^aNnaN. > I finished it DEC > > Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me > here]. > > CR: This one looks to me like a clear example of something preceding > the head -- ware 'work' certainly seems to be the head, as John said, > unless the gloss is somehow misleading. (By the way, John -- I don't > see why this would be "strictly speaking a noun clause" ... what do > you mean?) I meant that perhaps it might be interpreted as I finished [I do ...] but, looking at it again, no, of course not. I was confused. > CR: So this example, assuming head = ware, seems to argue for a > head-internal structure. ... > JEK: And, if I am correctly anticipating the next step, we can argue > that the determiner itself is not the head if we can show that it is > optional. > > ##Huh? Sorry, John. You've lost me here. My fault, probably! > Actually, I might well claim that the determiner (the clause-final one) IS > the head in the sense that the whole construction is a DP. But that's not > the one Johannes is saying is optional, I think (???) And this is a > different "head" than the nominal head of a relative ... What I meant was that if we are trying to show that the clauses are internally headed, then, having demonstrated that the nouns are within the clauses we have to protect against the next argument, which is that the nouns are not the heads, but, rather, the determiners are. Unfortunately, we've just used the externality of the post-clausal determiners to support the claim that the nouns (not adjacent to them) are internal. (I deleted that phase of the argument, so refer back to the original if needed.) So, I offer to counter that analysis by claiming that the determiners are only present if needed, and that when the clause is not definite or deictically indicated (or its head isn't), then the determiner is absent. Or, in short, the determiner is not the head, it is outside the head and modifying it. If it is a head, it's the head of some higher level entity, not the clause. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 26 06:15:16 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:15:16 -0600 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota (fwd) Message-ID: Oops, wrong address! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:44:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Koontz John E To: Dayna Bowker Lee Subject: Re: ethnic terms in Lakota On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Dayna Bowker Lee wrote: > ... ??n-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people > now, but began as a designation for an English person. ... I don't > know the origins of the Caddo words for English and French people. I'd guess something like this: ?in-ki-nish-ih En g lish I don't know anything about Caddo phonology but I know that you generally have to be ready to match r l n y and edh fearlessly to deal with Plains phonology - historical and in borrowing. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jul 26 14:52:58 2002 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:52:58 -0500 Subject: ethnic terms in Lakota (fwd) Message-ID: John, I don't know which computer or software you used for this one, but, as you can see, it's giving me the no-go again. Bob. ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:15 AM Subject: Re: ethnic terms in Lakota (fwd) > 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. <> > From Rgraczyk at aol.com Fri Jul 26 16:29:34 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:29:34 EDT Subject: More Spiders, Tricksters, and Whiteman Message-ID: In a message dated 07/25/2002 10:27:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > Out of curiosity, what might the analysis of isahkupe'e be? It's not analyzable, although I suspect the first part is the possessive prefix is(a)- Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boris at terracom.net Fri Jul 26 20:13:13 2002 From: boris at terracom.net (Alan Knutson) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:13:13 -0500 Subject: Lakota na Dakota Wowapi Oti Kin Message-ID: I thought everyone might be interested in this: From: The Scout Report July 26, 2002 Volume 8, Number 29 Lakota na Dakota Wowapi Oti Kin http://puffin.creighton.edu/lakota/index.html The Lakota na Dakota Wowapi Oti Kin is a one-stop information portal containing Internet resources on people of Lakota and Dakota descent (also known as Sioux or Siouan peoples). Created and maintained by Professor Martin Brokenleg of Augustana College and Dr. Raymond Bucko, S.J. of Creighton University, this site offers Web links in various categories including art and artists / music and musicians, bibliographic resources, demography, education, history, language resources, legal issues, maps, museums, and a host of other Lakota-related sites. For those interested in locating information in the field of Native American studies, specifically on the Sioux peoples, this site is an excellent place to begin your search -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Rgraczyk at aol.com Fri Jul 26 20:42:30 2002 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:42:30 EDT Subject: wild cats etc Message-ID: In a message dated 07/18/2002 1:28:43 PM Mountain Daylight Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > > Maybe this is why terms for 'whiteman' and 'trickster' (and both of > > these from 'spider') are the same in some Northern Plains languages. > > It's not quite that simple, since the two cases of 'spider' = 'Trickster' > that I know of off the top of my head are Cheyenne and Dakotan, and the > Cheyenne case includes 'whiteman', while the Dakotan case doesn't. On the > other hand, as far as I can recall Mandan also has 'Trickster' = > 'whiteman', but not 'Trickster' = 'spider'. A further dimension, of > course, is whether Trickster is called Whiteman in English by persons of > the group in question. > > In the Dakotan case the term for 'whiteman' (was^i'c^huN) does, however, > suggest a category of supernatural beings (s^ic^huN), though the 'steals > fat' analysis is widely accepted by speakers, and apparently some people > object to the s^ic^huN analysis, on prescriptive moral grounds ("people, > and certainly not white people, can't be spirits") or on grounds of logic > ("who would have thought a dumb thing like that?!"). Of course, I'm not > sure if everyone who has made a contrary argument to me has been a Dakota > person. I suspect in most cases they haven't been, in fact. Dakotanism > doesn't seem to be an evangelistic movement except among 'whitepersons'. > (I didn't mean the 'whitepersons' sarcastically. It's just the plural.) > > I'm still getting caught up on my mail, but did want to point out that the > Crow trickster term Isa'ahkawuattee 'Old Man Coyote' is also used, not for > whitemen in general, but for the Catholic priest/Catholic Church. A common > explanation is that the early missionaries had things like mirrors and > matches that were evidence of magical powers, hence the comparison to Old > Man Coyote. Another point of comparison mentioned by some is that Old Man > Coyote taught the people how to live properly, and the priest does the > same. Randy > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jggoodtracks at juno.com Fri Jul 26 18:45:16 2002 From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:45:16 -0500 Subject: Wolverines (Re: Virtues-wolves-coyotes) Message-ID: "Wamakashkan" referrs to a variety of animals "traveling about the earth". Riggs says (p.518) that the Dakota use it for "creeping things", while the Lakota use it for "game animals". When used in a ceremonial context, it is made in reference to the Southern Thunder (Direction) and generically for all "meat eatting animals" (wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc.). Jimm On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:18:10 +0100 bi1 at soas.ac.uk writes: > Thanks John > The Stoney one looks like a cognate. It was as you say a list of > animals in Bushotter. It is in text 114, where he groups them as > thalo yul uNpi 'carnivors'. In another text 105 he talks of > 'starnge > animals' wamakhas^saN...os^tekapi, but doen't say what they are. > Possibly the sort that you get in Australia. > > Bruce > n 17 Jul 2002, at 23:16, Koontz John E wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > While we are on animals I noticed in the Bushotter texts a word > mnaja > > > (ie mnaz^a) as 'wolverine'. ... I have also seen it in Riggs > Dakota > > > Dictionary as 'lion, wild cat'. ... > > > > I looked in the Siouan Archives files, and in various dictionaries > and, > > other than the Bushotter and Riggs references found only a Stoney > form > > mnazan. I suppose the -n is the diminutive. I think the fricative > shoift > > is normal. I also checked under 'lion', 'cat', and possible > phonological > > matches without luck. I'd expect something like *naNz^e in > Dhegiha or > > Ioway-Otoe, and like *naNaNs^ in Winnebago, though I also looked > in > > Omaha-Ponca under *bdhaNz^e and in Winnebago under *pa(N)naNs^, > just in > > case. > > > > This doesn't mean there isn't some attestation out there. > > > > I did notice "shanmonikasi" as a variant for 'wolf, prairie wolf, > coyote' > > in IO, attributed to Maximilian. > > > > I also think I saw the Bushotter reference in question. > Interestingly, it > > was a list of animals, and between 'badger' and 'lion' were > ma'yas^lec^a, > > s^uNkmanitu, and s^uNkmanitu thaNka. In the interlinear these > were > > glossed 'coyotes, wolves, and large wolves', and in the free they > were > > glossed 'coyotes, foxes'. > > > > I suppose we can take 'lion' as a way of saying (in English) 'big > cat', > > consistent with 'cat' as a generic preditor term. > > > > JEK > > > > > Dr. Bruce Ingham > Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies > SOAS From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 28 02:02:35 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:02:35 -0600 Subject: Evolution Publishing and Tutelo Message-ID: EP has brought out a new volume, No. 26, Minor Vocabularies of Tutelo and Saponi, comprising Sapir, Frachtenburg, Fontaine, and Byrd, plus a useful nine page essay by Claudio Salvucci. The bibliography of this volume includes Giulia Oliverio's 1996 dissertation. I don't know if the dissertation has been consulted yet, because there's no mention of Dorsey's ms. lexical materials from the NAA that she consulted and introduced to public consideration. It is also stated that 'the most detailed source for the Tutelo-Saponi language is an extended grammatical description by Horatio Hale'. Of course, that's probably still true if we have in mind primary sources and not references. Oliverio includes Dorsey's material along with all of the material in the other sources reproduced in the EP series. She does not reproduce the text of the original sources, and in that sense and others does not replace them as sources. She does apply to the data a thorough modern familiarity with the Siouan languages and she does a considerably better analysis of Tutelo. Oilverio 1996 clearly betters Hale 1883 as a 'grammatical study' and a lexical reference. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 28 03:16:20 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:16:20 -0600 Subject: Sacred. Deceive In-Reply-To: <004101c233e9$a400af20$e2b5ed81@robertra> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, R. Rankin wrote: > > This [*xop etc. as 'suck'] is presumably the connection in 'drunk', > > I wonder if it has anything to do with taking wine in communion? That's an interesting thought, and not at all beyond modern Omaha humor, but I don't know what the terminology of communion is, or if there is one in Omaha. On the other hand, (a) drinking and drunkenness (mostly with hard spirits) were introduced, I think, well before Christian religion, (b) communion ritual seems to me to do a good job of erasing any connection of drinking and inebriation, though certainly does establih one between ritual consumption of some beverage and sanctity, and (c) I'm not sure that the Protestant denominations among the Nebraska groups actually use wine. Some groups of a similar nature that I've participated with in the past use grape juice. Of course, I suppose wine was all that was possible before refrigeration. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jul 28 03:17:33 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:17:33 -0600 Subject: Calques Message-ID: Thinking about xube in the sense of 'drunk' brought smething else to mind. I've always wondered if the widespread 'fire water' formation [OP ppe(e)'deni] might not originate in a calque of French eau ardent [is this right?]. English tends to use the Gaelic loan whiskey, though 'ardent spirits' is possible. I also wonder about 'money' = 'white metal' [OP maN(aN)'zeska], cf. French argent. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 28 09:46:43 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:46:43 +0100 Subject: Calques Message-ID: Regarding money, white metal etc., Nancy Hickerson pointed out in IJAL in 1985 that the word for money in Kiowa was actually a version of Fr. 'argent'- olho, wioth both o's open and a tonemarking that I don't remember. Silver would have been more readily obtainable than gold for coinage/bullion in the Plains, I guess, if only because of its lower intrinsic cost. Silver equalling money is a calque found in languageas from Welsh to Armenian to Malay. And Spanish 'plata', 'silver' being used colloquially for money, may also have helped. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 4:17 AM Subject: Calques > Thinking about xube in the sense of 'drunk' brought smething else to mind. > > I've always wondered if the widespread 'fire water' formation [OP > ppe(e)'deni] might not originate in a calque of French eau ardent [is this > right?]. English tends to use the Gaelic loan whiskey, though 'ardent > spirits' is possible. > > I also wonder about 'money' = 'white metal' [OP maN(aN)'zeska], cf. > French argent. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Mon Jul 29 04:39:08 2002 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:39:08 -0700 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <006501c2335a$6dd2cd00$6f28c4cc@nsula.edu> Message-ID: It's nice to find an excuse to talk about Caddo. Maybe this should be a Caddoan list too. The Caddo word for Frenchman is especially interesting. It's ka:nush, with an accent on the first syllable. Hoijer's Tonkawa dictionary gives ka:nos for "Mexican", noting its origin in Mexicanos. I suspect that the Caddos borrowed it from the Tonkawas, though I suppose they could have invented it independently. Palatalization of s to sh after u is regular in Caddo, so it's a perfect match. Evidently this word first referred to any European, and then got narrowed down to Frenchmen, while ispayun came to be used for Mexicans. Ghost in Caddo is kahyuh. Any connection with haka:yuh "white" is unlikely, especially because of the h before the y in "ghost". By the way, that h in kahyuh is the murmured one I mentioned earlier, and earlier transcribers often interpreted it as an extra syllable. Hence the spelling kahayu. You find the same extra syllable in Cadohadacho, or however it's spelled, which is really kaduhda:chu?. I've also heard the story about how the Coushatta got their name from Caddo kuyashadah "I'm lost". Sonorants like y get lost intervocalically in Caddo fast speech, so the word can be kuashadah, even closer. It's a cute story. I guess it's just possible that yahyashattsi? for the little people came from "little lost ones" or something like that. I wonder. Wally --On Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:38 PM -0700 Dayna Bowker Lee wrote: > I have greatly enjoyed following the threads of this discussion. With the > caveat that I am not a linguist, I have a couple of bits of information > that might be of interest. The Caddo term used for little people - > yahyashattsi? or ha'yasatsi, Parsons (Reichard) associates with "lost." > More precisely, I suppose, "lost" + diminutive. In Caddo oral tradition, > a group of Alabama were said to have been encountered by the Caddo and > told them, "We're lost." This group came to be known as ku'yushsahdah > (Coushatta). Kuuwi yushsahdah is "I'm lost." > > The word for ghost is kahayu or kuyu, which may be derived from hakayu > (white). ??n-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people > now, but began as a designation for an English person. There were > specific terms for each of the dominant groups of white people that the > Caddo dealt with during the historic period. A Mexican or Spanish person > = ?ispayun. A French person = kah-nuush. Although > ?ispayun certainly seems like a Spanish cognate, I don't know the origins > of the Caddo words for English and French people. > > Dayna Lee > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 29 06:02:05 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:02:05 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <41106866.1027892348@[192.168.2.36]> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote: > It's nice to find an excuse to talk about Caddo. Maybe this should be a > Caddoan list too. As far as I'm concerned folks are welcome to discuss Caddoan languages on this list. That parallels the Siouan and Caddoan Conference, certainly, which has always been intended as joint. A certain amount of explanation may be required for benighted Siouanists. > The Caddo word for Frenchman is especially interesting. It's ka:nush, with > an accent on the first syllable. Hoijer's Tonkawa dictionary gives ka:nos > for "Mexican", noting its origin in Mexicanos. I suspect that the Caddos > borrowed it from the Tonkawas, though I suppose they could have invented it > independently. Palatalization of s to sh after u is regular in Caddo, so > it's a perfect match. Evidently this word first referred to any European, > and then got narrowed down to Frenchmen, while ispayun came to be used for > Mexicans. I'm thinking that maybe Mexican as an ethnic term covering Euro-Americans must date from Mexican independence, though, right? But that would be after 1821 (War of Independence 1810-1821), by which time the French no longer figured as a colonial power in the area (Louisiana to Spain 1763, to Franch 1803, to United States 1803), so it appears that the terminology has been adjusted substantially in the 1800s. From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 29 18:15:55 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 19:15:55 +0100 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms Message-ID: Dear all: Given the greater proxoimity of Mexicans (of whatever oriign) to where the Caddos lived, I suspect that it was easy enough for Caddos to regard them as the prototypical whiote men, soimply because they'd se more Mexicans than any other white people. The fact that mexico was still a Spanish colony doesn't really affect this, since it was more a question of wherther Spanish (etc) people living in mexico identified themselves as being 'Mexican' which might be important. Lots of whites who had property and salaves in the West Indies called themselves West Indians in the 18th century. Incidentally, there may have been Tlaxcaltec or other nahuatl influence in the Caddo area, since the Caddo word for bread, /dashkat/, is a loan from Nahuatl 'tortilla'. Caddo has absorbed words froma greater range of Native languages than any other Native language I know of. And kanush means Frenchman in Chitimacha, for what it's worth. They had 'espani for 'Spaniard', 'inkinish for 'English' and yah (< ja ) for 'German'. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: Re: Caddo ethnic terms > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Wallace Chafe wrote: > > It's nice to find an excuse to talk about Caddo. Maybe this should be a > > Caddoan list too. > > As far as I'm concerned folks are welcome to discuss Caddoan languages on > this list. That parallels the Siouan and Caddoan Conference, certainly, > which has always been intended as joint. A certain amount of explanation > may be required for benighted Siouanists. > > > The Caddo word for Frenchman is especially interesting. It's ka:nush, with > > an accent on the first syllable. Hoijer's Tonkawa dictionary gives ka:nos > > for "Mexican", noting its origin in Mexicanos. I suspect that the Caddos > > borrowed it from the Tonkawas, though I suppose they could have invented it > > independently. Palatalization of s to sh after u is regular in Caddo, so > > it's a perfect match. Evidently this word first referred to any European, > > and then got narrowed down to Frenchmen, while ispayun came to be used for > > Mexicans. > > I'm thinking that maybe Mexican as an ethnic term covering Euro-Americans > must date from Mexican independence, though, right? But that would be > after 1821 (War of Independence 1810-1821), by which time the French no > longer figured as a colonial power in the area (Louisiana to Spain 1763, > to Franch 1803, to United States 1803), so it appears that the terminology > has been adjusted substantially in the 1800s. > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 30 14:32:47 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:32:47 -0600 Subject: Siouan place names out of place? (fwd) Message-ID: I referred the question of Watonga, OK, to Bill Bright who has been working on Native American town names in the US with the aid of various specialists in particular languages. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:26:15 -0600 From: william bright To: Koontz John E Subject: Re: Siouan place names out of place? (fwd) hi david; watonga in OK is supposedly from the same source as watanga in CO (grand co.), i.e. the name of an arapaho leader. Allan Taylor gave me the name as /wo'at??nkoo'?h/ 'black coyote'; cf. /koo'?h/ 'coyote'. cheers; bill ===== In another representation, for those who don't have PCs, wo?ata'a'nkoo?o'h (V' = high pitch vowel, ? = glottal stop). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jul 30 14:58:46 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:58:46 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <001601c2372b$fdfaf900$03637ad5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Dear all: Given the greater proxoimity of Mexicans (of whatever oriign) to > where the Caddos lived, I suspect that it was easy enough for Caddos to > regard them as the prototypical whiote men, soimply because they'd se more > Mexicans than any other white people. The fact that mexico was still a > Spanish colony doesn't really affect this, since it was more a question of > wherther Spanish (etc) people living in mexico identified themselves as > being 'Mexican' which might be important. Lots of whites who had property > and salaves in the West Indies called themselves West Indians in the 18th > century. > > And kanush means Frenchman in Chitimacha, for what it's worth. They had > 'espani for 'Spaniard', 'inkinish for 'English' and yah (< ja ) for > 'German'. Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some etymology other than Mexicanos? As far as alternative suggestions. I don't think Canadians works any better, for reasons comparable to the problems with Mexicanos (too late, not quite on target). It's also a poor fit after the first syllable. 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. In this case we would be dealing with a term for the English (originally of French origin) as a generic term for Euroamericans getting specialized for the French presumably during the period of French (and later Spanish) control of the Louisiana Territory? The colonial French continued to handle much of the actual contact and trading in Louisiana during the period of Spanish control. JEK From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Jul 30 15:40:43 2002 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:40:43 -0500 Subject: The 23rd Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference Message-ID: Dear All, I'd like to announce the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference which will be held on August 8th - 10th in conjunction with the LSA Institute at Ann Arbor Michigan. Abstracts concerning any topic in Siouan and Caddoan languages and linguistics are welcome. Abstracts should be no longer than 250 words and can be submitted in hard copy or email form. Abstracts must be received by July 3, 2003. Address for hard copies: John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics 1010 East 59th St. Chicago, IL. 60613 Address for email copies (MSWord and pdf versions preferred or even in the body of the e-mail message): jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Deadline: July 3, 2002 The deadline is early due to the Institute, but hopefully people can begin to think about it now and not wait until the last minute. Since we are somewhat informal late submissions will probably be accepted but we will frown upon it. In addition Ardis Eschenberg and I have set up a webpage for the conference which can be found at: As you can see, we have attempted to catalog all of the previous conference with only partial success. If people have old programs for these conference it would be great to be able to add them to the webpage. You can either mail me hard copies at my home address: John Boyle 5312 South Dorchester Ave. # 2 chicago, IL. 60615 or e-mail them (to the above address) to me if you don't mind typing them up. We are particularly looking for conferences 1, 3-9, 11, 15, 20. Corrections for any errors or typos on the webpage can be e-mailed to Ardis although they are most likely my fault and not hers. Thanks, John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Tue Jul 30 16:16:08 2002 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:16:08 -0500 Subject: 23rd SACLC Message-ID: Dear John, According to the LSA website the 2003 institute will be at Michigan State, not the Univ. of Michigan. Are they wrong? Or will the Siouan meeting be in Ann Arbor? (I don't know anything about this other than what I saw on the web.) Pam ----- Dear all, I'm wrong. I didn't check the location and foolishly assumes it was at Ann Arbor. The Institute (and the SACLC) will be held at Michigan State University which is in East Lansing. Thanks Pam, All the best, John From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Jul 30 18:53:06 2002 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:53:06 -0500 Subject: Assiniboine verbs with verbal complements requiring -pi In-Reply-To: <004501c217c0$a470a2c0$d1b5ed81@oemcomputer> Message-ID: 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 just got back from a quick trip to Saskatchewan, where I was able to eliminate "okihi" 'be able to' from the list, and added "i~yushki~" 'to enjoy doing' For those of you keeping track, here's the current list: chinka 'want' i~yushki~ 'enjoy' snokya 'know' shka~ 'try' thawu~kashi~ 'hate to do' washtena 'like' wahoya 'promise' wayuphi 'be skilled at' If anyone recognizes in this list a similar set in some other Siouan (or for that matter, any other) language, I'd welcome suggestions for other verbs that might belong here. So far, I have found these by accident or by guess. I had thought it to be a fairly predictable modal class until I had to eliminate okihi 'to be able'. (I had earlier eliminated "cheyaka" 'must; should' and "shi" 'to tell to do"). I have also given up my hypothesis of emotion as a motivating factor because of "wayuphi". Linda From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 30 19:51:43 2002 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:51:43 +0100 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms Message-ID: Dear all: Herewith some further notes. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Koontz John E To: Anthony Grant Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Caddo ethnic terms Following John Koontz' posting: > Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas > Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract > chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but > primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the > French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some > etymology other than Mexicanos? If it does, I can't think what it would be. At least in Texas there were Spanish-speaking people responsible to Mexico (for instance people attached to Franciscan missions) before there were francophones, so that the first whites that many Natives would have met would have been 'Mexicans'm, be they Hispanic, Tlaxcaltecs, or whatever. I don't know too well how things would have been in Lousiana, although the number of early loans in languages of the Gulf which are from Spanish exceeds in number and spread those which come from French. Even if they came via Mobilian, Mobilian had to get them from somewhere. > > As far as alternative suggestions. I don't think Canadians works any > better, for reasons comparable to the problems with Mexicanos (too late, > not quite on target). It's also a poor fit after the first syllable. > I agree. Couldn't be 'Cadiens?, perhaps? Just a suggestion (and not one I believe in much). > 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. In Oklahoma Ottawa zhaagnassh (however spelt) is THE word for white man. It occurs in several other Alg. languages which restruicted meanings, and also in early records in some Chiwere and Dhegiha languages. A derivation of kanush from zakanash is a bit farfetched IMHO, givemn that the first vowel in the first form is long in some languages whereas the second /a/ in the second form is a svarabhakti vowel, though one never knows. In this case we would be dealing with a term for > the English (originally of French origin) as a generic term for > Euroamericans getting specialized for the French presumably during the > period of French (and later Spanish) control of the Louisiana Territory? > The colonial French continued to handle much of the actual contact and > trading in Louisiana during the period of Spanish control. > Indeed the French role in much of this area (not just Louisiana) lasted long after anglophones had political control of the region. Anthony > JEK > From are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu Tue Jul 30 21:06:28 2002 From: are2 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Ardis R Eschenberg) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:06:28 -0400 Subject: The 23rd Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The abstracts are due July 3, 2003 (not quite so early as 3 weeks ago!) <; Also, I think it might be appropriate to note that University at BUffalo and SSILA provided the space for the website. Regards, Ardis On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, John Boyle wrote: > > Deadline: July 3, 2002 > > The deadline is early due to the Institute, but hopefully people can > begin to think about it now and not wait until the last minute. > Since we are somewhat informal late submissions will probably be > accepted but we will frown upon it. > > In addition Ardis Eschenberg and I have set up a webpage for the > conference which can be found at: > > > > As you can see, we have attempted to catalog all of the previous > conference with only partial success. If people have old programs > for these conference it would be great to be able to add them to the > webpage. You can either mail me hard copies at my home address: > > John Boyle > 5312 South Dorchester Ave. # 2 > chicago, IL. > 60615 > > or e-mail them (to the above address) to me if you don't mind typing them up. > > We are particularly looking for conferences 1, 3-9, 11, 15, 20. > Corrections for any errors or typos on the webpage can be e-mailed to > Ardis although they are most likely my fault and not hers. > > Thanks, > > John From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Jul 30 21:12:29 2002 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:12:29 -0700 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms Message-ID: >> 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 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 31 00:30:13 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:30:13 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: <000301c23807$c2f11060$484201d5@a5h1k3> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote: > Following John Koontz' posting: > > Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas > > Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract > > chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but > > primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the > > French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some > > etymology other than Mexicanos? > > ... At least in Texas there were Spanish-speaking people responsible > to Mexico (for instance people attached to Franciscan missions) before > there were francophones, so that the first whites that many Natives > would have met would have been 'Mexicans'm, be they Hispanic, > Tlaxcaltecs, or whatever. I don't know too well how things would have > been in Lousiana, although the number of early loans in languages of > the Gulf which are from Spanish exceeds in number and spread those > which come from French. Even if they came via Mobilian, Mobilian had > to get them from somewhere. The problem is that, in my understanding of the sociology and ethnolinguistics of the situation, the Spanish - metropolitan, creole, or mestizo - from the presidency (or viceroyalty?) of Mexico were never refered to as Mexicans, by themselves or others. In that period the term Mexican would have meant - I think - a native speaker of Nahuatl. The term Mexican would only refer to a Spanish speaker from Mexico after the Mexico became independent and the term Mexico acquired a new, nationalist significance. Prior to that event the term Mexican would have been functionally closer to "Ottawa" or "Ojibwa," i.e., it would have implied a native agent or client, and hence it would not have been a very likely source for a term for a Spanish speaker or a European in general. I suppose there may have been a point at which creoles and especially mestizos began to call themselves Mexicanos just as Americans began calling themselves Americans to some extent before independence. But before a development of national sentiment, calling oneself a Mexicano or an American would have been tantamount to admitting a degree of social inferiority. "Yes, I'm a colonial." So, the term Mexican would not have been available until after c. 1810, probably not until after 1821. And if it had been borrowed at that point, it would likely have replaced an earlier term, since the Caddo had been interacting with both the French and the Spanish regularly for over 100 years at that point. Either it replaced an earlier general term for 'whiteman', or an earlier term for 'Spanish speaker', or there was no earlier term. It seems unlikely it would have replaced an earlier term for French speaker immediately. In any of these cases it is hard to see how, starting at that point it could have become a specific term for French speakers, whose ascendency had ended before this (in 1763 or 1803). So, it seems far more likely that the term came into existence at a point and place when the French were the usual sort of whitemen and was specialized to Frenchmen when regular contact came to include varieties of whitemen other than Frenchmen. This might have happened over the whole range of kanus ~ kanus~ usage all at once, or the term may have specialized with one group and spread to the others after specialization (but before it became irrelevant). Amy of these scenarioes would make it unlikely that the source of the word is Mexicanos. By the time that term is likely to be available, Mexican was in Texas on the verge of being more likely to have been borrowed in its English form than its Spanish one. I may be wrong in explaining Kanus^ as a development of les Anglois 'the English', but it does seem more likely than Mexicanos, The extreme irony of the French being known etymologically as 'the English' is not lost upon me. Of course I am in the odd situation of having to suppose that the term (sa)kanus^ was available in a generic sense 'whiteman' and that subsequently Frenchmen became the dominant whitemen in the area. I think the Lower Mississippi is actually a good context for this. The French were the most prominent earliest explorers of the area (after de Soto), and used Algonquian languages, especially Ottawa/Ojibwa as contact languages. In such a context one might well expect an opposition between 'regular whitemen' and '(sa)kanas' to result in a presence mainly of the latter. The river and the area east of it were disputed between the English and the French in the 1600s and early 1700s, with the English being generally more successful (I think the Chickasaw were among their more prominent agents). This might provide the context for referring to whitemen generally as sakanas^, as most of them would have been 'the English'. But matters settled out so that from 1763 the Louisiana area was in Spanish hands, but with most of the actual European residents and traders being French colonials. After 1763 the Spanish provided mainly the governors and some troops. This would have been an excellent context in which to distinguish the French as ordinary '(sa)kanas^' as opposed to the newly influentiual Spanish. And from that point the chance of meeting a real (sa)kanas^ would have gradually decreased in favor of meeting ones who referred to themselves as Americans or people from some specific English colony. The Ohio Valley Algonquian languages provide a reasonable source for the term (sa)kanas(^), but to make this likely I'd prefer to have some evidence of the term in circulation in Muskogean, Tunica, Natchez, etc., at least in the early period. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 31 00:39:21 2002 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:39:21 -0600 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Costa wrote: > >> I think zakanas^ or something like it is found in some Algonquian languages. > > 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': I think that any presentation of summaries actually went to Tony, but I am aware that the term was widespread in Algonquian languages and thatit mean 'the English'. I just don't know the Algonquian forms off the top of my head. > 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 Siouan forms I know by memory are: Teton s^agla's^a Santee s^ahdas^a (I think) OP "sakenash" probably sagdhas^a or sakkenas^a IO "laggerash ~ raggerash" ragras^ I'll have to check these to make sure I haven't lost any final vowels. > 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. How about taking the m- from "an (Englishman)," though I don't see why m instead of n. JEK From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Jul 31 16:24:10 2002 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:24:10 -0700 Subject: Caddo ethnic terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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. 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. > I suppose there may have been a point at which creoles and especially > mestizos began to call themselves Mexicanos just as Americans began > calling themselves Americans to some extent before independence. But > before a development of national sentiment, calling oneself a Mexicano or > an American would have been tantamount to admitting a degree of social > inferiority. "Yes, I'm a colonial." That could be more or less the right scenario. We're not concerned here with what these people called themselves, but with what other people (Tonkawas, Caddos, etc.) called them, and it need not have been complimentary. The other suggested origins for ka:nos seem too far-fetched to take seriously. Wally