=(b)(i) in Dakotan

[voorhis at westman.wave.ca]

ROOD DAVID S wrote:
>         The pi/kta discussion reminds me of something that I only vaguely
> remember, but which someone who works with Lakota in Canada, or Dakota,
> should tell us more about.  In the relative clause construction in Sioux
> Valley, according to some 60's or 70's work by either Pat Shaw or Jack
> Chambers or Valerie Drummond or some combination thereof, the clauses
> were said to end in either -g (from ki) or -b (from pi); can anyone recall
> or find out what these marked?

-b is still plural.  In relative clauses it is a contraction of pi g
(from pi ki).  Incidentally, around here ki is still kiN, with the nasal
vowel, when people take the care not to reduce it to g.  But saying kiN
instead of g seems to be akin to pronouncing the English definite
article like thee, instead of with schwa, even before consonants.

pi kta~e contracts to pta~e.

Paul
Brandon MB, Canada