From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:05:35 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:05:35 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330101b9785792100c@[160.94.64.17]>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.150535.0100.>

I only know that cement, for which can share similar applications
as gypsum is known as iNyaN makha 'stone clay'.
Bruce
On 8 Aug 2002, at 12:17, Patricia Albers wrote:

> Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
> gypsum, also loosely called mica?
>
> Pat Albers
> Chair, Department of American Indian Studies
> 2 Scott Hall
> University of Minnesota
> Minneapolis, MN 55414
> (612)-625-8050


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:08:39 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:08:39 +0100
Subject: Proverbs (whistling)
In-Reply-To: <20020808.124938.-170213.7.jggoodtracks@juno.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.150839.0100.>

Somewhere  I found a sentence jo omani 'he walks whistling' (as
the spirits of the dead do), though I'm not sure where from.
Bruce
On 8 Aug 2002, at 12:38, Jimm G GoodTracks wrote:

> I was going through some old EM's, and came to your responce below.  I
> would be interested in a list of these "sayings" from the older Ponca in
> White Eagle.  I wonder how many I would recognize, and how similar/
> different they may be from Otoe-Missouria, Ioways and Pawnees?
> Jimm GoodTracks
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:26:28 -0600 "TLeonard-tulsa.com"
> <tleonard at prodigy.net> writes:
> >  JEK wrote:
> >  I seem to recall a comparable warning for either Dakota or Omaha along
> the
> > lines of "Don't whistle, you sound like a ghost."  Presumably sounding
> like
> > a ghost is bad because one either becomes one or summons one.
> >
> >  I've heard similar admonishments from older Ponca folks around White
> Eagle,
> > Oklahoma. The one I always heard was: "Don't whistle while your outside
> at
> > night. You'll attract ghosts."
> >  The one I always loved was: "Don't eat too much fish. They'll make
> your
> > hair  grey."
> >
> >  Have recordings of these and others in Ponca.
> >  TML
>


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:12:58 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:12:58 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208082129320.7422-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.151258.0100.>

John
Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s
a guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of
course chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
Bruce
On 8 Aug 2002, at 22:35, Koontz John E wrote:

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


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:15:21 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:15:21 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330100b979a3367e59@[128.101.249.209]>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.151521.0100.>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020903/8f4b98a7/attachment.bin>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Sep  3 15:37:33 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:37:33 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <3D74D17A.3121.13AFE41@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.093733.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
> guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
> veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
> chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.

What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.

JEK


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 16:35:51 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:35:51 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209030935060.18993-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.173551.0100.>

Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'

Bruce
On 3 Sep 2002, at 9:37, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> > Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
> > guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
> > veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
> > chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
>
> What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
> I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.
>
> JEK
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Sep  3 17:39:31 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:39:31 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <3D74F2F7.16188.1BDD0DF@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.113931.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'

Oops, sounds like I was barking up the wrong tree.  The OP 'bank' word is
maNa' (< *maNha').  The 'land', 'mud, mire', 'soil', 'clay', 'bank/cliff'
terms seem to be shuffled from one language to another in Mississippi
Valley, though I've never set myself down to try to work it out.

Forms like maNa' are one reason it's hard to use just a regular n to mark
nasality in OP.  The other reason is that ma and maN contrast, thanks to
the *W > m, *R > n shift.  However, I'm not sure na and naN do contrast at
present.  Dorsey seems to have felt that they did in the 1880s.


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Tue Sep  3 18:12:49 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:12:49 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.131249.0500.>

Is there any relationship between La. makha and OP
maNdhiN'ka, 'earth', 'soil', 'clay' or (I think)
'season'?

OP maz^aN', in my experience, seems to mean 'land'
in the sense of 'territory' or 'region'.  Offhand,
I can't think of anywhere I've seen it used for
'soil'.

Rory

> Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'

> Bruce
> On 3 Sep 2002, at 9:37, Koontz John E wrote:

>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
>> > Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
>> > guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
>> > veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
>> > chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
>>
>> What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
>> I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.
>>
>> JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Sep  3 19:57:04 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:57:04 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <OF414A6048.E37C0346-ON86256C29.0062D614@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.135704.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> Is there any relationship between La. makha and OP maNdhiN'ka,
> 'earth', 'soil', 'clay' or (I think) 'season'?

Good question!  I can see I'm going to have to look at this.  It would
mean comparing Pre-Da *maNh-ka to Pre-Dh *maN(r)iNh-ka.  I suspect, with
no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
wac^hi in OP.

> OP maz^aN', in my experience, seems to mean 'land' in the sense of
> 'territory' or 'region'.  Offhand, I can't think of anywhere I've seen
> it used for 'soil'.

Yeah, like Genoa, NE 'ppaN'dhiN ma(N)'z^aN'.  I'll have to see where I got
that 'soil' idea, if I didn't hallucinate it.

JEK


From Rgraczyk at aol.com  Tue Sep  3 23:31:13 2002
From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:31:13 EDT
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.193113.EDT.>

In a message dated 9/3/2002 1:58:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:


> I suspect, with
> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
> wac^hi in OP.
>

It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.

Randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020903/da0b8eba/attachment.html>

From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep  4 00:11:45 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:11:45 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.191145.0500.>

> I suspect, with
> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance
homophone, like the two
> wac^hi in OP.
> It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means
'season' in Crow.

It's also the common Siouan root for 'gamebird' and is
typically found in 'turkey' and several other large,
hunted birds.

Bob


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Sep  4 00:35:06 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:35:06 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.193506.0500.>

> In a message dated 9/3/2002 1:58:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:
>
>> I suspect, with
>> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
>> wac^hi in OP.
>
>
> It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.
>
> Randy

I seem to recall that our own English term "world" is
derived from old Germanic wer-ald, meaning "man-age".

I wonder if the background concept in these cases isn't
something like 'the universe of human experience, at
least on this earth and in this cycle of time'.  That
would allow semantic extensions both to the planet and
the material comprising it, and to time periods like
seasons, years or epochs.

Rory


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Sep  4 02:00:01 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:00:01 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.210001.0500.>

>> The meanings also seem close enough to be
>> variants of a single verb concept.  Just
>> out of curiosity, suppose we had an original
>> Proto-Siouan verb *?iN, meaning to bear
>> on the back.
>
>> . . . adding some sort of /ki-/ particle in
>> front to get *ki?iN' or some such, meaning
>> literally 'carry one's own',
>
>> . . . the /i/ in /ki-/ is eventually schwa-ed
>> and elided, leaving *k?iN, to pack something
>> on the back, vs. *?iN, meaning to wear on the
>> back, as two separate verb roots.  Does this
>> hypothesis sound at all plausible?

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

If the situation in other MVS languages is
inconsistent with the hypothesis I proposed,
then that will shoot down the hypothesis;
that was what I was asking about.  But I
don't think what I suggested is anywhere
nearly as far-fetched as the flying fox feet
of our Roman grammarians.  This weekend I
browsed a few dictionaries of Old World
languages, looking for cases where the word
for 'wear' was the same as the word for 'carry'.

I already knew that these were the same in
German with the word 'tragen', which is also
cognate to our word 'drag'.  It turns out that
Dutch also uses 'dragen' for both 'carry' and
'wear'; Swedish uses 'baera'; French uses
'porter'; Spanish uses both 'llevar' and
'traer' in both senses; Czech, Serbo-Croatian
and Russian all use something like 'nosit';
and ancient Latin used 'gerere'.  Thus, it
seems that equivalence of the concepts 'carry'
and 'wear' is the norm in Germanic, Slavic and
Romance, the three most wide-spread European
language groups.  Our own word 'wear' comes
from Old English 'werian', which meant both
'wear' and 'carry' according to my little
American Heritage Dictionary.

Outside of these, equation of these two
concepts was less common.  I did not find it
in Basque, Irish, Latvian, Turkish, Japanese
or Swahili.  I did find it, however, in
Estonian and Kurdish.

Hence, it seems that the concept 'wear' very
commonly, but certainly not always, derives
from the concept 'carry'.  To have two roots
so similar in MVS, one meaning 'wear' and the
other meaning 'carry', where one may simply
be the reflexive version of the other, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, is highly
suggestive of an earlier equivalence here.
This would not detract in any way from the
fact that these are distinct roots in the
daughter languages, as Bob pointed out earlier.

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep  4 15:17:12 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:17:12 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.101712.0500.>

'wear' and 'carry' are certainly related in lots of
languages.  My only problem is with the putative Siouan
derivation.  There are lots of KI's in MVS, but I'm not
crazy about the semantics of *k- here without parallel
cases.  If we're saying it's derivation, then maybe it
will be possible to find other cases without stretching
meanings too much.

Bob

> If the situation in other MVS languages is
> inconsistent with the hypothesis I proposed,
> then that will shoot down the hypothesis;
> that was what I was asking about.  But I
> don't think what I suggested is anywhere
> nearly as far-fetched as the flying fox feet
> of our Roman grammarians.  This weekend I
> browsed a few dictionaries of Old World
> languages, looking for cases where the word
> for 'wear' was the same as the word for 'carry'.
>
> I already knew that these were the same in
> German with the word 'tragen', which is also
> cognate to our word 'drag'.  It turns out that
> Dutch also uses 'dragen' for both 'carry' and
> 'wear'; Swedish uses 'baera'; French uses
> 'porter'; Spanish uses both 'llevar' and
> 'traer' in both senses; Czech, Serbo-Croatian
> and Russian all use something like 'nosit';
> and ancient Latin used 'gerere'.  Thus, it
> seems that equivalence of the concepts 'carry'
> and 'wear' is the norm in Germanic, Slavic and
> Romance, the three most wide-spread European
> language groups.  Our own word 'wear' comes
> from Old English 'werian', which meant both
> 'wear' and 'carry' according to my little
> American Heritage Dictionary.
>
> Outside of these, equation of these two
> concepts was less common.  I did not find it
> in Basque, Irish, Latvian, Turkish, Japanese
> or Swahili.  I did find it, however, in
> Estonian and Kurdish.
>
> Hence, it seems that the concept 'wear' very
> commonly, but certainly not always, derives
> from the concept 'carry'.  To have two roots
> so similar in MVS, one meaning 'wear' and the
> other meaning 'carry', where one may simply
> be the reflexive version of the other, in the
> absence of evidence to the contrary, is highly
> suggestive of an earlier equivalence here.
> This would not detract in any way from the
> fact that these are distinct roots in the
> daughter languages, as Bob pointed out earlier.
>
> Rory
>
>
>


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Sep  4 16:03:06 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:03:06 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.110306.0500.>

> 'wear' and 'carry' are certainly related in lots of
> languages.  My only problem is with the putative Siouan
> derivation.  There are lots of KI's in MVS, but I'm not
> crazy about the semantics of *k- here without parallel
> cases.  If we're saying it's derivation, then maybe it
> will be possible to find other cases without stretching
> meanings too much.
>
> Bob

Alright, so concretely, how should we approach this?
Are you saying that we should look for other MVS verb
pairs of { *?V- | *k?V- } to see if they seem
semantically related?  If so, do we have enough such
pairs to produce a reasonable database?

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep  4 18:56:58 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:56:58 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.135658.0500.>

> Alright, so concretely, how should we approach this?
> Are you saying that we should look for other MVS verb
> pairs of { *?V- | *k?V- } to see if they seem
> semantically related?  If so, do we have enough such
> pairs to produce a reasonable database?

Finding other glottal stems with the alternation would
be ideal, but there are so few viable glottal stems
that you'd probably want to extend the search beyond
them.  I think the phonology works, e.g., ki+?uN > k?uN
'article+did/do'.  I'm more worried about the precise
semantics in the case of 'carry' > 'wear'.  I am a
little apprehensive about stretching 'ones own' or
'oneself' to yield the meaning we get.  Ihave to admit
I haven't given it a lot of thought. . .

It occurs to me that I've seen various other verbs of
wearing and nouns derived from them for articles of
clothing.  Might pay to look at them too.

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Sep  4 23:25:53 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:25:53 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <001101c25444$d92e6180$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.172553.0600.>

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Finding other glottal stems with the alternation would
> be ideal, but there are so few viable glottal stems
> that you'd probably want to extend the search beyond
> them.

k? in

*s^ik?e 'woman's brother-in-law'
*k?iN 'pack, carry on back'
*k?e 'dig'
*hki?uN 'gamble'  (*k?oN in Dhegiha)
*k?u 'give'
*yook?i 'to roast'
*k?a... *k?o... *k?e... in onomatopeics for grating noises
*ak?a 'south or west wind'

The most promising look to be 'dig'. 'roast'. and, of course, 'pack on the
back'.  'Give' might be a dative, but probably not a suus-form.

===

*?iN 'wear about the shoulders'
*?o 'hit and wound'
*?uN 'do/be'

I think there's a longer list of *?-stems on the list a few years ago.
I also surveyed OP carying verbs a while back this year.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Sep  4 23:53:25 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:53:25 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <89.1d4a65fb.2aa6a041@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.175325.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote:
> John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:
> > I suspect, with no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone,
> > ...

> It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.

It looks like the chance homophone theory is out the door!

Teton        ma(N)khaN' 'ground, earth'
             o'ma(N)khaN 'a season, winter or summer; a half year season'

Omaha-Ponca  maNdhiN'kka 'ground, earth'
             umaN'dhiNkka 'season'

Osage        maN[dh]iN'hka 'earth'
             omaN'iNhka 'year'

Kaw          maN[y]iN'kka 'earth'
             omaN'iNkka 'year, season'

Quapaw       ma(N)niN'kka 'earth'
             oma(N)'nikka 'year'

Winnebago    maNaN 'earth, ground, year'

It looks homophony or the a locative form (which would seem to require a
verbal root for those who are interested) is the rule.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Sep  5 01:09:42 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:09:42 -0600
Subject: Earth
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.190942.0600.>

I promised I would look up some earth words (as opposed to dirty words).

*htVNt- 'steppe'

Dakota tiN'ta 'prairie'
OP ttaN'de 'ground'
Ks ttaN'j^e 'high ground'
Osage htaN'ce 'earth, ground, treeless prairie'
(?) Quapaw ttaNna' 'earth'

[Note IO has abra'hge 'flat on it' for 'plains']

*maN- 'soil'

OP maN- 'earth' (in compounds)
Osage maN- 'earth' (in compounds like 'dust', 'mud')
Quapaw ma- 'earth' (in compounds like 'mud')
IO maN 'ground, dust, soil, earth'
Winnebago maNaN 'earth. ground', also in compounds like 'dust', 'dirt',
    'sand')

*maNh-ka

Dakotan makha' 'ground, earth, soil, the earth, land, clay'
(?) IO makhaN 'clay' (irregular dev?) (not maNkha ~ maNkhaN 'medicine')

*maN(r)iN'h-ka 'earth' (Dhegiha only)

OP maN(dh)iNkka 'earth'
Osage maN(dh)iNhka 'earth, soil, clay'
Qu mani'kka 'earth, soil, ground'

*maN-ka 'bank'

Winnebago moo'ga 'bank'
Winnebago moo'gas^uc^ 'Red Banks (legendary homeland)

*maN'ha 'bank' (?)

(?) Dakotan mayaN' 'bank' (irregular development?)
OP maNa' 'bank'
Osage maN'ha 'cliff, west'
Quapaw maN'a(zi) 'cliff'
IO maN'ha 'earth, ground, dirt', also 'mud, dust' (in compounds)
Winnebago maNaNha' 'mud'
(?) Winnebago mooha(j^a) 'hard ground'

*maNgh- 'field'

Dakotan ma'gha 'field'
Ioway-Otoe maNxe 'field'
Winnebago maNaNx 'field'
(?) Winnebago maNaNgh(a)- (in compounds) 'field' (irregular development?)

[Note that Dhegiha has forms like OP u'?e, Osage o'we < *wo'k?e 'wherein
to dig' for 'field']

*maN'z^aN 'land, country'

(?) Dakotan maya' 'bank' (irregular development?)
OP maNz^aN' 'country, land'
Osage maN'z^aN 'country, world, land'
Quapaw maz^aN', maz^oN' 'land'
IO ma'yaN 'earth, land, country, clay'
IO ma'yaN s^uj^e 'Red Earth' (legendary homeland)

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Sep  5 01:13:52 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:13:52 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209041728350.8221-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.191352.0600.>

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> Winnebago    maNaN 'earth, ground, year'

I found the missing Ioway-Otoe form:

maN 'ground, dirt, soil' and also:  'weather'

This may be the missing link.  'Season' and 'year' are a phase and the
cycle of 'weather', which is 'something in the ground' or 'something in
the land'.


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Sep  5 14:21:12 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:21:12 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.5.SEP.2002.092112.0500.>

No, I'm just talking about ?-stems, not glottalized
stop stems.

In addition to the ones you list, there's 'think',
which has a preverb of some kind but it's the ?iN that
is conjugated.  And there's our mysterious *?e: 'be??'

> k? in
>
> *s^ik?e 'woman's brother-in-law'
> *k?iN 'pack, carry on back'
> *k?e 'dig'
> *hki?uN 'gamble'  (*k?oN in Dhegiha)
> *k?u 'give'
> *yook?i 'to roast'
> *k?a... *k?o... *k?e... in onomatopeics for grating
noises
> *ak?a 'south or west wind'
>
> The most promising look to be 'dig'. 'roast'. and, of
course, 'pack on the
> back'.  'Give' might be a dative, but probably not a
suus-form.
>
> ===
>
> *?iN 'wear about the shoulders'
> *?o 'hit and wound'
> *?uN 'do/be'
>
> I think there's a longer list of *?-stems on the list
a few years ago.
> I also surveyed OP carying verbs a while back this
year.
>
> JEK
>


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Fri Sep  6 09:49:58 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:49:58 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <OF414A6048.E37C0346-ON86256C29.0062D614@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.SEP.2002.104958.0100.>

The stem makha 'earth, soil, world' also appears in omakha 'year,
season' referring to the yearly cycle of earthly change, I presume.
Cree has a similar semantic link between a word for earth and a
word for year, though I can't remember the word.

Bruce

On 3 Sep 2002, at 13:12, rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:

>
> Is there any relationship between La. makha and OP
> maNdhiN'ka, 'earth', 'soil', 'clay' or (I think)
> 'season'?
>
> OP maz^aN', in my experience, seems to mean 'land'
> in the sense of 'territory' or 'region'.  Offhand,
> I can't think of anywhere I've seen it used for
> 'soil'.
>
> Rory
>
> > Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'
>
> > Bruce
> > On 3 Sep 2002, at 9:37, Koontz John E wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> >> > Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
> >> > guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
> >> > veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
> >> > chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
> >>
> >> What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
> >> I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.
> >>
> >> JEK
>
>
>
>


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Fri Sep  6 11:30:47 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:30:47 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <OF8179F8F3.9C1ACF54-ON86256C2A.00008263@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.SEP.2002.123047.0100.>

Time and tide wait for no man.  tid is 'time' in Norwegian and time
is 'hour' in Norwegian.  The Arabic word wagt 'time' can be the
extention of 'bad times' mean 'drought'. I hope all this helps
Bruce

On 3 Sep 2002, at 19:35, rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:

>
> > In a message dated 9/3/2002 1:58:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> > John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:
> >
> >> I suspect, with
> >> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
> >> wac^hi in OP.
> >
> >
> > It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.
> >
> > Randy
>
> I seem to recall that our own English term "world" is
> derived from old Germanic wer-ald, meaning "man-age".
>
> I wonder if the background concept in these cases isn't
> something like 'the universe of human experience, at
> least on this earth and in this cycle of time'.  That
> would allow semantic extensions both to the planet and
> the material comprising it, and to time periods like
> seasons, years or epochs.
>
> Rory
>
>
>


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From ahartley at d.umn.edu  Sat Sep  7 15:23:38 2002
From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:23:38 -0500
Subject: Chiwere
Message-ID: <SAT.7.SEP.2002.102338.0500.>

Harking back to our complicated and fascinating discussion of the
etymology of Chiwere (and Dhegiha) in Feb.-Mar. 2000, can someone please
tell me the current pronunciation of the name *in English*: especially,
is the initial consonant voiced or not, and is the stress on the second
syllable or the first?

Thanks, Alan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sat Sep  7 16:08:56 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:08:56 -0600
Subject: Chiwere
In-Reply-To: <3D7A19FA.BB4B6078@d.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.7.SEP.2002.100856.0600.>

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Alan H. Hartley wrote:
> Harking back to our complicated and fascinating discussion of the
> etymology of Chiwere (and Dhegiha) in Feb.-Mar. 2000, can someone please
> tell me the current pronunciation of the name *in English*: especially,
> is the initial consonant voiced or not, and is the stress on the second
> syllable or the first?

For linguists, the pronunciation is [c^<lax i>'w<lax e>ri] or [c^<lax
i>'weiri].  The c^ isn't aspirated, because of being before an unaccented
vowel.  (I'm using the '+syllable convention.)  I'm not aware that the
term is used in English except in a learned fashion, by linguists,
anthropologists, and archeologists.  The usual version in popular use (by
the people, of the people) is probably Otoe, for which I have ['outou]
with the usual reduction of t to tapped r.

Jimm Good Tracks would be a better source than I on actual day to day use
of any of these terms - when used and how pronounced.


From jggoodtracks at juno.com  Mon Sep  9 02:43:55 2002
From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:43:55 -0500
Subject: Chiwere
Message-ID: <SUN.8.SEP.2002.214355.0500.>

As John correctly indicateds, the English term used by the People in and
of the community is "Otoe" or "Otoe-Missouria".  The latter is
particularily true of those few families that can trace a direct link to
Missouria ancestors.  This is usually indicated by present day surnames.

When speaking in the language, the contemporary term used by the People
is "Jiwere", as in:
Jiwe're hiNch^e' to.  Let's speak (in) Otoe.  (dual)
The linguistic term "Chiwere" is not understood, not does it have
significance.  It is a mispronunciation which has now passed into a
popular legitimatized academic usage.
On occasions when the last fluent speaker of the language, Truman Daily,
would address the People at a large gathering, such as a tribal dance, he
would address all gathered, saying:

Ho, Jiwere Nyut^achi.  Warigroxiwi ke.   Tahena hine granax^unna.
Greetings, Otoe-Missouria People, I pray for you (gloss: I am greatly
thankful for your attention).
For those (of you who) listening to me.

jgt

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:08:56 -0600 (MDT) Koontz John E
<John.Koontz at colorado.edu> writes:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Alan H. Hartley wrote:
> > Harking back to our complicated and fascinating discussion of the
> > etymology of Chiwere (and Dhegiha) in Feb.-Mar. 2000, can someone
please
> > tell me the current pronunciation of the name *in English*:
especially,
> > is the initial consonant voiced or not, and is the stress on the
second
> > syllable or the first?
>
> For linguists, the pronunciation is [c^<lax i>'w<lax e>ri] or [c^<lax
> i>'weiri].  The c^ isn't aspirated, because of being before an
unaccented
> vowel.  (I'm using the '+syllable convention.)  I'm not aware that the
> term is used in English except in a learned fashion, by linguists,
> anthropologists, and archeologists.  The usual version in popular use
(by
> the people, of the people) is probably Otoe, for which I have ['outou]
> with the usual reduction of t to tapped r.
>
> Jimm Good Tracks would be a better source than I on actual day to day
use
> of any of these terms - when used and how pronounced.
>
>
>


From bruguier at usd.edu  Tue Sep 24 20:11:15 2002
From: bruguier at usd.edu (Bruguier, Leonard)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:11:15 -0500
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <TUE.24.SEP.2002.151115.0500.>

hey hey folks: is there a font out there that i can use to transcribe some
of my tapes in Dakota? any help appreciated. with respect, horse

Leonard R. Bruguier
605.677.5945, 605.677.6525 FAX
www.usd.edu/iais/
"Life is good, I aint had a bad day since '68." St. Lefty



-----Original Message-----
From: Rankin, Robert L [mailto:rankin at ku.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:02 AM
To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu '
Subject: RE: Omaha athe, etc.


>So we have (pre-)historically two different words that come
out as /the/ in OP.  One is the positional, 'standing inanimate',
(or 'plural, bundled').  The other is a cognate of Hidatsa /rahe/,
which means 'to say that'.  The former modifies nouns.  The
latter works with verbs to convey the sense that evidently the
verb took place.  By analogy, other positionals have also been
introduced into the post-verbal slot with the same EVIDENTIAL
meaning.  So any time we find a positional after a verb in OP,
the implication is that the verb 'evidently' happened.  Is this
a valid re-statement of what you're saying?

Yep, exactly!

>For /athe'/, it looks like we have two hypotheses:
     1)  It is the 1st-person inflected form of /the/.
     2)  It is a separate, uninflected particle.

I think I'll start by trying Catherine's excellent suggestion of

     aNzhaN' aNthe'

My only caveat here has to do with the fact that the verb 'sleep' here has a
final nasal vowel.  Since the beginning of the putative 'we must have slept'
contains the same vowel, there is some possibility of confusion on the part
of speakers.  Maybe some verb that ends in an oral V would improve chances.

Bob


From wablenica at mail.ru  Tue Sep 24 21:56:15 2002
From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:56:15 +0400
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.015615.0400.>

Hi, Leonard,

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruguier, Leonard <bruguier at usd.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: Sioux language font


> hey hey folks: is there a font out there that i can use to transcribe some
> of my tapes in Dakota? any help appreciated. with respect, horse
>

The problem in LDN texts is that there are lotsa orthographies for it
(Colorado, Buechel, WhiteHat, Boas/Deloria; NetSiouan, Txakini).
There are several fonts online that can be utilized for specific LDN
characters, but the problem is in keying in these characters rather than the
choice of the fonts.
You have to install keyboard driver for specific font, or design the driver
yourself. Else you should insert the non-ABC characters by pressing some
weird keystrokes like Alt-154 (s) or recording macros in Microsoft Word or
other text editor.
Besides, you can have problems with exporting the texts into other
applications, or submitting the texts to somebody - his/her computer can be
devoid of the font or can have problems with installing it.
Personally, I prefer to use some intermediate, internal coding using plain
ABC that consistently and easily can be converted into other spellings
LATER.
E.g.: nasalized vowels - a~, i~, u~
aspirated stops: p*, t*, c*, k* (if you discern weak and strong aspiration
you should design additional markers)
others: s*, z*, h*, g*.
Using these conventions you can mix Dakota and English text and then convert
the Dakota part by some global replacements.
Other spellings are not so easy to convert: for example, if you use "ph, th,
ch, kh" for aspirated stops, you can spoil your "PHonetics, THat, CHeck"
occurences; using aN, iN, uN for nasals you can oversee sentence-initial
"ANpetu" or convert "ANOTHER" into something like "A~ot*er". :-)

However these are useful links for fonts and keyboards:
John Koontz. Siouan fonts:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/fonts/ssfonts.htm - supports both Colorado
and Buechel
Titus Cyberbit Basic:
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/unicode/tituut.asp - Standard Unicode
compatible, has full phonetic set, plus full non-spacing diacritics, plus
vowels with nasal hooks and acute or breve accents - ready to use. The only
"minus" is the font size - ~1.7 megabytes.
And finally, Pan-Euro versions of Windows 95+ have the character sets enough
for coding in Colorado and Buechel. More about the fonts, and how to
download them here: http://www.inext.cz/siouan/checkup.htm

Good luck!
P.S. If you don't mind, a little Q.: have you observed strong (velar)
aspiration in your dialect of Dakota (in the words like thathanka, khunshi,
chanpha)

Best wishes,
Constantine


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Sep 25 07:09:39 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:09:39 -0600
Subject: Sioux language font
In-Reply-To: <003c01c26415$38384da0$4384763e@avt1046180>
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.010939.0600.>

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Wablenica wrote:
> However these are useful links for fonts and keyboards:
> John Koontz. Siouan fonts:
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/fonts/ssfonts.htm - supports both Colorado
> and Buechel

It would be hard to improve on Constantine's advice.  I could add that the
fonts above include support for Riggs and variosu BAE schemes as well.
Some keyboarding schemes based on the Tavultesoft Keyman tool that SIL
recommends for Windows use are included, though the documentation is
stronger for the Standard Siouan font than it is for the Dakotanist
(Buechel & Riggs) or BAE fonts.

There is now a new version of Keyman from SIL (http://www.sil.org).
Keyman can be used with any font.  It can be set to convert usages like a~
to nasalized a. I'm less sure about aN, because it's been a long time
since I worked with the package.  It can be difficult to find convenient
key combinations that aren't already in use by Windows or WIndows
applications, not to mention plain old English (or Dakota).  Things like
,a for nasal a or .s for esh are a possibility.

JEK


From napsha51 at aol.com  Wed Sep 25 13:09:58 2002
From: napsha51 at aol.com (napsha51 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:09:58 -0400
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.090958.0400.>

John, I don't know where else to write, please change my address to
napshawin at hotmail.com
what is wrong with my orthography? You don't need fonts, it he owawa, lila atxaninyan Lakxota ki wo-unwapi kta cha he-un, eyash tuweni chin shin s'elecheca!
violet


From munro at ucla.edu  Wed Sep 25 14:47:56 2002
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 07:47:56 -0700
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.074756.0700.>

I'm with Violet -- who needs special fonts for Lakhota? Save them for languages with really difficult phonetics if you must!

Pam



napsha51 at aol.com wrote:

> John, I don't know where else to write, please change my address to
> napshawin at hotmail.com
> what is wrong with my orthography? You don't need fonts, it he owawa, lila atxaninyan Lakxota ki wo-unwapi kta cha he-un, eyash tuweni chin shin s'elecheca!
> violet


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep 25 14:47:55 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:47:55 -0500
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.094755.0500.>

Yes!  Go to John Koontz's web site and you can download
several different Siouan fonts that will allow you to
use current phonological symbols, the traditional Riggs
Sioux spelling system or several other variants.  His
URL is:  http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz

Bob Rankin


----- Original Message -----
From: Bruguier, Leonard <bruguier at usd.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:11 PM
Subject: Sioux language font


> hey hey folks: is there a font out there that i can
use to transcribe some
> of my tapes in Dakota? any help appreciated. with
respect, horse
>
> Leonard R. Bruguier
> 605.677.5945, 605.677.6525 FAX
> www.usd.edu/iais/
> "Life is good, I aint had a bad day since '68." St.
Lefty
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rankin, Robert L [mailto:rankin at ku.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:02 AM
> To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu '
> Subject: RE: Omaha athe, etc.
>
>
> >So we have (pre-)historically two different words
that come
> out as /the/ in OP.  One is the positional, 'standing
inanimate',
> (or 'plural, bundled').  The other is a cognate of
Hidatsa /rahe/,
> which means 'to say that'.  The former modifies
nouns.  The
> latter works with verbs to convey the sense that
evidently the
> verb took place.  By analogy, other positionals have
also been
> introduced into the post-verbal slot with the same
EVIDENTIAL
> meaning.  So any time we find a positional after a
verb in OP,
> the implication is that the verb 'evidently'
happened.  Is this
> a valid re-statement of what you're saying?
>
> Yep, exactly!
>
> >For /athe'/, it looks like we have two hypotheses:
>      1)  It is the 1st-person inflected form of
/the/.
>      2)  It is a separate, uninflected particle.
>
> I think I'll start by trying Catherine's excellent
suggestion of
>
>      aNzhaN' aNthe'
>
> My only caveat here has to do with the fact that the
verb 'sleep' here has a
> final nasal vowel.  Since the beginning of the
putative 'we must have slept'
> contains the same vowel, there is some possibility of
confusion on the part
> of speakers.  Maybe some verb that ends in an oral V
would improve chances.
>
> Bob
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Sep 27 18:47:38 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:47:38 -0500
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.134738.0500.>

I'm currently working with Carolyn Quintero and her
Osage lexical materials and we have a question or two.

1.  What is your judgment of the transitivity of a
sentence like "John is standing on the floor" in a
typical Siouan language?  Something like "John
floor-the anazhiN."

Does the fact that the locative a- is a part of the
verb nazhiN 'stand' render the word 'floor' the direct
object of the verb?  In English we would take 'on the
floor' to be something quite different from the direct
object, but what about anazhiN?  Is 'the floor' the DO
in Siouan or not?

2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
direct object of the verb in, for example,
a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
is it a voice marker?

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Sep 27 19:53:30 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:53:30 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <003501c26656$5ecfea20$d1b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.135330.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> I'm currently working with Carolyn Quintero and her
> Osage lexical materials and we have a question or two.
>
> 1.  What is your judgment of the transitivity of a sentence like "John
> is standing on the floor" in a typical Siouan language?  Something
> like "John floor-the anazhiN."

I think David Rood has pointed out that such constructions are somewhat
ambiguously transitive in Dakotan.  At least some locatives can add an
additional argument to a verb already transitive, though I think this
additional argument is always third person, which is highly suggestive.  A
first or second person object has to be the only one.  I do not know the
specific examples, off hand, though this may have been mentioned on the
list (check the archives).  I hope I am remembering this correctly.

It seems to me that the basic test to apply is whether the locative can
govern a first or second person object.  If it can, then the verb is
transitive.  My impression is that forms like the one you cite meet this
test of transitivity in Dhegiha.  More difficult cases would occur with
verbs already transitive.  I would suspect that such verbs would only
permit either the locative or the underlying stem to govern an object,
probably only the locative with a-.

But think about forms with instruments governed by i-.  My guess is that
in this case i- would have to be third person, and the verb might permit
an object for the basic stem.  Examples, like 'I cut you with the knife'
and so on.

Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

> 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the direct object
> of the verb in, for example, a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other,
> where atoMpe is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or is it a voice
> marker?

I'd say not.  I think it's essentially a derivational prefix, though it
does go inside the locative.  The fact that hki-k- goes inside the
locative, but (sometimes) outside an outer instrumental, is one of the
ordering conundrums in Omaha-Ponca:  a little detail that taken with
various others makes it difficult to justify an account of OP morphology
that relies on a strict position class approach to OP morphosyntax.
Basically you need some account equivalent to a series of rules that
determine the position of *hki from the form of the underlying stem.

You might want to look at the number of *hki-k- forms that have a
reflexive benefactive sense, e.g., akkikkaghe 'I made it for myself'.  I
don't think you can say something like 'I made you for myself', but I'm
not sure.  As David Rood pointed out to me once, the somewhat comparable
reflexive possessive (suus) stems are definitely transitive.  'I saw you
(my relative)' is quite possible in OP.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Sep 27 19:59:13 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:59:13 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209271334450.7999-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.135913.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
> argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
> two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
> would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
> agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
> permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

My point is that I don't think the verb can agree pronominally with the
thing lacked.  I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
don't have you, my life isn't worth living.' I expect there's a paraphrase
that avoids the issue.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Sep 27 20:27:22 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:27:22 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <003501c26656$5ecfea20$d1b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.142722.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

> I'm currently working with Carolyn Quintero and her
> Osage lexical materials and we have a question or two.
>
> 1.  What is your judgment of the transitivity of a
> sentence like "John is standing on the floor" in a
> typical Siouan language?  Something like "John
> floor-the anazhiN."
>
> Does the fact that the locative a- is a part of the
> verb nazhiN 'stand' render the word 'floor' the direct
> object of the verb?  In English we would take 'on the
> floor' to be something quite different from the direct
> object, but what about anazhiN?  Is 'the floor' the DO
> in Siouan or not?


I can tell you what happens in Lakhota, if that helps.  Verbs with
locative prefixes take direct object personal pronouns (recall from the
kazoo conference my example of amachage 'ice formed on me').  But if the
object is third person, it must be marked by a postposition in addition to
the locative prefix (Phez^i akaN achage 'ice formed on the grass').  My
immediate reaction is to treat the locative prefix as an adposition and
treat the object as oblique -- i.e. it's not the direct object of the verb,
but an argument of the affix.  The alternative would be to treat the prefix
as an applicative and argue that it has "promoted" an oblique object to
argument status.  In either case, the adposition has to be some kind of
duplication -- either the affix or the adposition is a copy/agreement of
the other -- and I am not aware of any kind of syntax that allows
different case markers depending on the person of the arguments (enlighten
me, please, if such things exist -- that would be fascinating).

>
> 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
> direct object of the verb in, for example,
> a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
> is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
> is it a voice marker?


Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

David


> Bob
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Sep 27 21:56:51 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:56:51 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209271409370.714-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.155651.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> I can tell you what happens in Lakhota, if that helps.

So, ignore my summary of the Dakota, which was off the mark!

> Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
> BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
> reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
> de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
> reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

In OP the reflexive-reciprocal is active intransitive.

JEK


From Rgraczyk at aol.com  Sat Sep 28 00:29:30 2002
From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:29:30 EDT
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.202930.EDT.>

I have been treating verbs like 'stand on' with locative prefixes as
transitive in Crow.  I guess my main reason for saying this is that the
locative prefixes are somewhat fossilized, i.e., they do not combine freely
with verb roots, but only occur with a limited set of roots, and their
semantics are not always perfectly straightforward.

Some Crow verbs with locative prefixes actually have double objects, e.g.
a'apchiaxxu 'pour on' : pour water on John.

Randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020927/2ad61565/attachment.html>

From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Sat Sep 28 00:49:06 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:49:06 -0500
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.194906.0500.>

>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>> Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
>> argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
>> two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
>> would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
>> agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
>> permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

> My point is that I don't think the verb can agree pronominally with the
> thing lacked.  I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
> don't have you, my life isn't worth living.' I expect there's a
paraphrase
> that avoids the issue.

Would the first clause be something like:  Dhi aNdhiN'ge (egaN')...  ?

The word dhiNge' shouldn't be thought of as 'to lack', which is transitive
in English, but rather as 'to be gone' or 'to be lacking'.  You can then
have a subject which is missing with respect to me.  This is normally in
the third person, so we don't get an affixed pronominal as a visible
parameter to the verb.  So if the emphatic pronoun dhi is a free argument
here, does it need a corresponding affixed pronoun, or can it be treated
the same as any other free nominal argument?

aNska'.                 I am (colored) white.
hi ska'.                The teeth are white.
hi aNska'.              My teeth are white.  (= the teeth are white with
                                                respect to me. )

This sequence, if correct, would mean that a stative verb can take two
arguments, to one of which the quality is ascribed, and the other of
which is sort of the indirect object of that relationship.

We might conceive it differently, though, if we suppose that the
nominal argument can function adverbially as a qualifier of the verb;
i.e. hi aNska' could mean "I am white teeth-wise".  Then hi ska'
could be interpreted in either of two different ways.  But if this
were true, "ShaN'ge aNdhiN'ge" would have to mean: "I am missing
horse-wise", which doesn't seem to make much sense.  I think I favor
the first possibility.

Interesting issue...

Rory


From munro at ucla.edu  Sat Sep 28 03:12:52 2002
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:12:52 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.201252.0700.>

Speaking as a lurker who knows quite a bit about Siouan languages and
this typology, my answers would be

1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
DO).

2. No, it is absolutely not a DO.
I would not call it a voice marker either as I understand the term. For
the comparable morpheme in Lakhota and other languages like this I know
of, I would consider it essentially a detransitivizer. But maybe there
are subtleties in Osage I'm not familiar with.

Pam


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Sat Sep 28 04:02:14 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:02:14 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209271409370.714-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.210214.0700.>

David Rood wrote:

> In either case, the adposition has to be some kind of
> duplication -- either the affix or the adposition is a copy/agreement of
> the other -- and I am not aware of any kind of syntax that allows
> different case markers depending on the person of the arguments (enlighten
> me, please, if such things exist -- that would be fascinating).

Actually, I think such a thing is possible. If I recall correctly, 3rd
person is treated quite differently from local persons in Athabaskan
languages, especially the northern ones. (If you're truly interested, check
out what Sharon Hargus, Keren Rice and Leslie Saxon have to say on the
issue. They all differ somewhat, but are talking about the same issue - the
difference in case marking between local and non-local persons).

There are certainly case splits that run across person lines (see Jelinek,
1985 on Nisgha, for example).

> >
> > 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
> > direct object of the verb in, for example,
> > a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
> > is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> > argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
> > is it a voice marker?
>
>
> Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
> BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
> reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
> de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
> reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

I really need to re-read that paper. I'm having nothing by trouble figuring
out reflexives in Assiniboine. They don't work quite the same way as in
Lakhota, and it's confusing me greatly.

Shannon


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Sat Sep 28 04:05:51 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:05:51 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <3D951E33.F48339AE@ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.210551.0700.>

This is a very interesting conversation, and I've been after this type of
evidence myself lately. I'm still fighting with the question of pronominal
arguments and such. This kind of thing might give me the edge I need. :)

 Pamela Munro
> Sent: September 27, 2002 8:13 PM
>
> Speaking as a lurker who knows quite a bit about Siouan languages and
> this typology, my answers would be
>
> 1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
> DO).

Ok. But why? :) Why not an oblique? I'm really interested in this one. I
haven't taken sides yet (I'm such a fence-sitter, I have post marks
permanently indenting my backside), so I'd really like to see lots of
thoughts on this. :)

Shannon


From munro at ucla.edu  Sat Sep 28 04:24:04 2002
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:24:04 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.212404.0700.>

Re Shannon's question, this is definitional for me (thus perhaps a
theoretical position) --

If the argument in question is not marked with a postposition, it is a
"direct argument", i.e. either a subject (it's not that), or an object.
I called it a "direct object" because it's the only object. The case
where there is another agreeing object (not the one Bob asked about) is
interesting, of course.

To me, the terms "direct" and "indirect" for objects don't seem
particularly appropriate for this type of language, because there is a
mis-match. Often, in a language like this, the indirect (recipient)
object of a verb like 'give' is the one that will agree ( if it's one of
Shannon's "local persons"). As John pointed out, there may be a verb
with the locative applicative prefix which takes a normal (patient)
direct object that can agree. So we have agreeing indirect objects
lining up with agreeing patient objects vs. non-agreeing patients and
locatives -- ouch! This suggests that what is relevant is some kind of
person hierarchy or maybe a hierarchy of salience or something, rather
than straightforward grammatical relations. (But in my nihilistic vein
I'd prefer to think it's pretty much lexical, though with strong
semantic tendencies....) (This is assuming pretty much that only one
non-subject argument can agree, which is not perhaps strictly always
true.)

Thus I was not fully informative in saying that I thought the locative
argument in Bob's original sentence was (probably) a DO. (I don't know
Osage, so this is really all speculation. But that's my gut feeling.)

So these locatives might be "semantic obliques", but they aren't
"formal" obliques, at least for me.

Pam


From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Sep 28 14:55:06 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:55:06 -0500
Subject: transitivity, locative prefixes, etc.
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.095506.0500.>

All,

Many thanks indeed for all the really fascinating
input.  I sort of figured that this might be like
squirting the garden hose at the hornet's nest.
Obviously a lot depends on what model of grammar one
tends to "think in".  It also depends on whether we
take a semantic or a purely morpho-syntactic point of
view.

> To me, the terms "direct" and "indirect" for objects
don't seem
> particularly appropriate for this type of language,
because there is a
> mis-match. Often, in a language like this, the
indirect (recipient)
> object of a verb like 'give' is the one that will
agree ( if it's one of
> Shannon's "local persons").

I've always sort of liked Matt Dryer's notion of
"primary object" and "secondary object".

> Thus I was not fully informative in saying that I
thought the locative
> argument in Bob's original sentence was (probably) a
DO. (I don't know
> Osage, so this is really all speculation. But that's
my gut feeling.)

Well, Osage works generally very much like Dakota.  I
think we can say that of nearly all Mississippi Valley
Siouan languages (I haven't looked at Winnebago).
Pam's "gut feeling" was mine too, and that's what I
told Carolyn.  Like Randy, I noted that very many
locative prefixes are part of their verbs and range
from totally transparent to totally opaque in
analyzability (I haven't had my coffee this a.m. so I
don't know if that's spelled right.).

> So these locatives might be "semantic obliques", but
they aren't
> "formal" obliques, at least for me.

I have a feeling that talking about "semantic obliques"
(or other semantic analyses) is just a fancy way of
saying "we're translating this sentence into English
and then analyzing the English." . . . something that
used to get Mary Haas's hackles up.  I guess, like Pam,
I'm trying to think of things in morphosyntactic terms
taking into consideration "the genius of the Siouan
languages", i.e., the fact that they have real
postpositions that allow for oblique arguments,
ordinary PP's, BUT they also have these three locative
prefixes that are "different" from postpositions.  Why?
What does this difference imply grammatically?  Etc.
That's what you guys are helping so much with here.
Thanks again for your comments, feelings and analyses.
All are very valuable to us.  I'd be happy to hear more
along the same lines.

Best,

Bob


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Sat Sep 28 17:32:55 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:32:55 -0500
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <3D951E33.F48339AE@ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.123255.0500.>

-------------------
> I would not call it a voice marker either as I understand the term.
For
> the comparable morpheme in Lakhota and other languages like this I
know
> of, I would consider it essentially a detransitivizer.

I'm curious about the question of a middle voice.  I played around
with the idea a while back to see if it might explain the difference
between 1st sg "waki" and "we" in verbs with "ki" - it seemed to come
close, but in the end, the argument was a bit squishy because there
were several counterexamples to the class I was attempting to
construct.  VanValin (1977) called these "a special form of transitive
verbs which overtly indicates that the Actor possesses the
Patient..analobous to the "middle Voice forms in some Indo-Europesan
languages (47-8), and on p. 58 says "there is another morpheme "ki"
which marks the "middle voice", i.e. the possession of the Patient by
the Actor. Thus "ki-" marks two different kinds of possession in
addition to its semantic roles."

Has anyone else formally pursued this idea?

Lind


From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Sat Sep 28 17:47:28 2002
From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:47:28 -0700
Subject: transitivity, locative prefixes, etc.
In-Reply-To: <003101c266ff$0be759c0$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.104728.0700.>

Dear All,

I'm inclined to agree with Pam and Bob and others of you. I've always
thought of these prefixes (a-, I-, etc.) as prototypical applicatives,
that is, they derive a new verb stem whose added core argument is a
location, an instrument, etc.

As many of you know, applicatives can have two kinds of grammatical
effects when applied to verb stems that are already transitive. In some
languages, the added argument (location, etc.) replaces the original
second argument (usually a semantic patient), which then is not mentioned
at all or is grammatically oblique. In other languages, applicatives add
an argument, deriving a ditransitive stem from a previously transitive
one. And yet other languages have some of each.

Since the applicative morphology is derivational, and creates new lexical
items, the new stems can take on a life of their own and develop in
idiosyncratic ways, sometimes with a shift in transitivity. So what might
have started life as a derived transitive could be reinterpreted as an
intransitive, etc.

Actually, Athabaskan languages show very much the same kind of situation,
as many of you know. Most have a large inventory of separate
'postpositions', which carry pronominal prefixes just like verbs do:

	me-for   you-cook

etc.
Over time, some combinations of postposition and following inflected verb
have come to be recognized as lexicalized expressions, and the word
boundary has broken down, so that in those cases, the former postposition,
preceded by its pronominal prefix, has become the initial element of the
verb word. In some cases both forms persist in the language: independent
postpositions (with pronominal prefixes) and cognate applicative verbal
prefixes (with pronominal prefixes), typically with the verbal prefixes
slightly more eroded in form, as would be expected. Some of the group that
were undoubtedly originally postpositions now survive only as applicative
prefixes on verbs; their postpositional sources have dropped out of the
language.

In some cases, speakers still have choices between a postposition followed
by a verb, and an applicative verb. As might be expected, the independent
postposition in these cases, puts separate attention on the postposition,
while the applicative verb is interpreted more as a single lexical unit,
often with more idiomatic meaning. Of course applicative constructions
make that additional argument a core argument, so it is more likely to
happen to animate arguments, especially first and second persons.

I tend to feel the same way as Pam: a major formal sign of the difference
between core and oblique status is whether pronominal reference is in
the verb or not. Of course with Siouan third persons, there is less
visible difference, with zero third persons.


Marianne


On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

>
> All,
>
> Many thanks indeed for all the really fascinating
> input.  I sort of figured that this might be like
> squirting the garden hose at the hornet's nest.
> Obviously a lot depends on what model of grammar one
> tends to "think in".  It also depends on whether we
> take a semantic or a purely morpho-syntactic point of
> view.
>
> > To me, the terms "direct" and "indirect" for objects
> don't seem
> > particularly appropriate for this type of language,
> because there is a
> > mis-match. Often, in a language like this, the
> indirect (recipient)
> > object of a verb like 'give' is the one that will
> agree ( if it's one of
> > Shannon's "local persons").
>
> I've always sort of liked Matt Dryer's notion of
> "primary object" and "secondary object".
>
> > Thus I was not fully informative in saying that I
> thought the locative
> > argument in Bob's original sentence was (probably) a
> DO. (I don't know
> > Osage, so this is really all speculation. But that's
> my gut feeling.)
>
> Well, Osage works generally very much like Dakota.  I
> think we can say that of nearly all Mississippi Valley
> Siouan languages (I haven't looked at Winnebago).
> Pam's "gut feeling" was mine too, and that's what I
> told Carolyn.  Like Randy, I noted that very many
> locative prefixes are part of their verbs and range
> from totally transparent to totally opaque in
> analyzability (I haven't had my coffee this a.m. so I
> don't know if that's spelled right.).
>
> > So these locatives might be "semantic obliques", but
> they aren't
> > "formal" obliques, at least for me.
>
> I have a feeling that talking about "semantic obliques"
> (or other semantic analyses) is just a fancy way of
> saying "we're translating this sentence into English
> and then analyzing the English." . . . something that
> used to get Mary Haas's hackles up.  I guess, like Pam,
> I'm trying to think of things in morphosyntactic terms
> taking into consideration "the genius of the Siouan
> languages", i.e., the fact that they have real
> postpositions that allow for oblique arguments,
> ordinary PP's, BUT they also have these three locative
> prefixes that are "different" from postpositions.  Why?
> What does this difference imply grammatically?  Etc.
> That's what you guys are helping so much with here.
> Thanks again for your comments, feelings and analyses.
> All are very valuable to us.  I'd be happy to hear more
> along the same lines.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 04:58:34 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:58:34 -0600
Subject: Sioux language font (fwd)
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.225834.0600.>

I think this might have been meant for the list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:36:37 -0500
From: Timothy Dunnigan <dunni001 at umn.edu>
To: Leonard Bruguier <bruguier at usd.edu>
Cc: John.Koontz at COLORADO.EDU, wablenica at mail.ru
Subject: Re: Sioux language font

Dear Leonard,

Regarding your inquiry about the availability of a Dakota font, the Dakota
Language Program in the Department of American Indian Studies (AIS) at the
University of Minnesota is using a version of a font developed by Alan
Ominsky for the Dakota Language Committee chaired by Dr. Christian
Matonunpa, a Professor of American Indian and Dakota Studies at Southwest
State University, Minnesota.  Dr. Matonunpa and his daughter Dr. Angela
Wilson (Professor of History at Arizona State University) decided to mark
unaspirated p, t, c, k with a dot positioned below the letter, while
leaving their aspirated counterparts unmarked.  A dot is positioned over
the letter to represent alveopalatal s and z and velar h and g.  The Riggs
convention of representing vowel nasalization with an angma (velar n) is
maintained.  The marking of primary and secondary stress on vowels is also
an option.  The typing macros are ALT+Cntl+(letter) for small case.  The
Shift+..., of course, capitalizes.  The font permits both bolding and
italicizing.

AIS has made aspiration the marked case.  While the typing macros are
simple for Mac applications, the AIS version requires the use of the
numerical key pad for PC applications.  I could try to send you a
simplified PC version (use of the numeric keys unnecessary) as an email
attachment, if your interested.

Tim Dunnigan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 06:04:26 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:04:26 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <OF7F6CD327.088B4F62-ON86256C41.00838588@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.000426.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> > I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
> > don't have you, my life isn't worth living.'

> Would the first clause be something like:  Dhi aNdhiN'ge (egaN')...  ?

No idea, really, though I think not, as I've never run into any verbs with
multiple patient inflection, and the closest thing to an independent
pronominal without pronominal agreement I can think of is aNgutta as the
alienable possessive (cf. aNgu 'us' as independent inclusive).  But all of
the alienable forms tend to look like that in OP, and this is kind of off
topic, so ...

> The word dhiNge' shouldn't be thought of as 'to lack', which is
> transitive in English, but rather as 'to be gone' or 'to be lacking'.
> You can then have a subject which is missing with respect to me.
> This is normally in the third person, so we don't get an affixed
> pronominal as a visible parameter to the verb.  So if the emphatic
> pronoun dhi is a free argument here, does it need a corresponding
> affixed pronoun, or can it be treated the same as any other free
> nominal argument?

I like to gloss verbs with English verbs that have similar argument
structures, too, but this is an area in which it gets a bit difficult at
times.  I think the morphological argument with dhiNge is always in
patient form, and always signifies the person experiencing the lack.  The
person/thing lacked has to be a third person reference (I'm not sure it
can be a person), and coincidentally the verb, of course, doesn't agree
with it.

I'll suggest somewhat uncertainly that this is true across at least
Mississippi Valley Siouan, hoping to hear some confirmations or
contradictions.

I think there are several other verbs like this in Dhegiha languages, and
also in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages, and that we tend to
overlook them in classifying Siouan verbs.

The general syntax is

NP arg-verb

where

NP is a nominal (always third person)
arg is a patient (or dative-patient) prefix on the verb

arg experiences something involving NP

I expect that it must be possible to echo arg with an independent
pronominal for focus purposes, as usual, though I don't have any specific
examples.

Other verbs like this may be 'to lose/drop' and 'to have one's own die'
(with dative patient).  However, there are others involving bodily
sensations and states.  We've discussed them before as dative-subject
verbs.  The NP is often incorporated, leading to infixing verb stems.

> aNska'.                 I am (colored) white.
> hi ska'.                The teeth are white.
> hi aNska'.              My teeth are white.  (= the teeth are white with
>                                                 respect to me. )
>
> This sequence, if correct, would mean that a stative verb can take two
> arguments, to one of which the quality is ascribed, and the other of
> which is sort of the indirect object of that relationship.

One could interpret this as something different, involving possessor
raising, and it is different to the extent that dhiNge plainly always
involves two arguments, while ska doesn't.  I don't think it is really
possible to use dhiNge in cases like 'you were missing'.

However, I think examples like this behavior of ska are really comparable,
anyway.

There's a small difficulty is knowing whether hi ska is 'his teeth are
white' or, getting fancy 'he experiences white teeth'.  But it doesn't
strike me as particularly problematic if this middle case - middle in the
list above, I mean! - is either ambiguous or an alternate argument
structure.  Clearly there are some cases that parallel dhiNge in argument
structure.  We should be used to verbs that have multiple argument
structures, some intransitive and some transitive, from English, e.g.,
'roll' in 'it rolls' and 'I roll it', or 'eat' in 'I ate' and 'I ate it',
or even 'it eats like chicken'.  Or 'feel (OK)' with 'it feels OK (to me)'
and 'I feel OK', where the last two cases involve intransitive structures
with different kinds of argument.

The thing to notice, though, is that in the two argument cases in OP, the
verb marks the experiencer and uses the same pronominal series it uses
when it's marking the subject in one-argument cases.  I've switched to
saying one-argument and two-argument, because it's clear that there are
difficulties in calling the two-argument cases transitive in the Siouan
context.  I don't want to get hung up on terminology.  I think people who
agreed on the facts of these forms might disagree on whether to call them
transitive, both for theoretical reasons and because these cases are
somewhat intermediate.

This is essentially the point Rory goes on to make.

> We might conceive it differently, though, if we suppose that the
> nominal argument can function adverbially as a qualifier of the verb;
> i.e. hi aNska' could mean "I am white teeth-wise".  Then hi ska'
> could be interpreted in either of two different ways.  But if this
> were true, "ShaN'ge aNdhiN'ge" would have to mean: "I am missing
> horse-wise", which doesn't seem to make much sense.  I think I favor
> the first possibility.
>
> Interesting issue...

Yep!


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 08:17:11 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:17:11 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMOENDCLAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.021711.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> > 1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
> > DO).
>
> Ok. But why? :) Why not an oblique? I'm really interested in this one. I
> haven't taken sides yet (I'm such a fence-sitter, I have post marks
> permanently indenting my backside), so I'd really like to see lots of
> thoughts on this. :)

My argument is pretty much along Pam Munro's lines (and others), to wit,
the argument of the locative prefix is the direct object of the
locative-prefixed verb if the verb agrees with the "semantic locative"
(hereafter the locus) but uses regular patient agreement forms to do so.
As Bob points out, the concept of "semantic locative" is something of a
slippery slope, but, in the absence of any universally recognized
metalanguage we're sort of stuck with that slippery slope, I think.
Still, given that Siouan languages do have locative postpositions I think
a hypothetical Osage speaker, suitably inclined, could use Osage itself as
a metalanguage in this case.  The results might be somewhat ungrammatical,
but, then, I'm OK with examples like 'I command it on you' for a'wigas^i
(< a'gas^i 'to command').

Like Bob I like the terms primary and secondary object.  Omaha-Ponca, and
also, I suppose, Osage, permits secondary objects as NPs, but it only
agrees with primary objects.  I'd say a verb like dhiNge agrees with the
experiencer as primary object and that the thing lacked is a secondary
object.  Or, as some would say, an oblique.

In case it helps, some Omaha-Ponca examples follow.  Unfortunately, I
don't have any great examples with a'ttaN 'to tread on'.

JOD 1890:264.5
ttaha'wagdhe iNdhattaN         the  ha
shield       you tread on mine EVID ASSERT

(Spoken by Big (Snapping?) Turtle, referring to stepping on his shell.)

(a) iN-    dha- ttaN
on  me-DAT you  tread

Unfortunately, the morphological logic of OP verbs is such that a-aN on-me
becomes aN only, and the dative is derived from that by vowel shift as iN.

Incidentally, this is one of those cases where only the "derived by vowel
shift" explanation is the only option, as opposed to explaining iN < aN +
gi by some sort of elision of g and fusion of aN and i, because, if you'll
notice, the gi dative prefix ought to follow dha, but has somehow managed
to combine with aN through dha without affecting dha at all.

So, if you know OP morphology this is a convincing case of "agreeing with
the locus using verb morphology", but if you don't and are skeptical, you
might think I'm trying to pull a fast one here.  A case of "I tread on
you" would be much more convincing, were one to hand.  It would be
a'-wi-ttaN, where wi is comparable to c^hi.

JOD 1890:214.14-15

si=  the siNde=ge  wa'ttaN=        bi=    kki
foot the tails the he trod on them REPORT when
(he trod on the tails with his foot)

wa-  a-  ttaN
them on tread

where wa- is the Dhegiha vicar for wic^ha- - or vice versa.

Not as convincing, perhaps, because the pronominal in this case precedes
the a and one might want to argue that it was somehow an argument of the
a, but not the ttaN.

Other, better examples with other stems:

a'-wi-gdhiN 'I sit on you'   JOD 1890:99.13

a'-wi-b-dhaskabe 'I stick to you'  JOD 1890:211.12

a'-wi-gippanaN 'I gaze on you (my relation)'  JOD 1890:230.12

a'-wi-naNge 'I run on (or over) you'  JOD 1890:566.8

a'-wi-gaz^ade 'I step over you'  JOD 1890:568.

a'-wi-naN?aN 'I hear from you'  JOD 1890:717.12

a'-wi-kki=b-dha 'I attack you' (a...kki=dha)  JOD 1890:23.18

a'-wi-gaz^i 'I command you'  JOD 1890:198.7

In all of these cases the primary object is the locus.

I haven't found any examples of a- transitives that seem to agree with
something other than the locus, but consider i'-.  ote that i'- is
sometimes plainly instrumental (governing an argument of means), and in
other cases it is more generally locative.


* Cases where i- governs a secondary object, not the primary object.

waxiN'ha i'-wi-maghe 'letter I ask you (about)'  JOD 1890:658.2

waxiN'ha i'-wi-kkikka 'letter I ask as a favor of you'  JOD 1890:675.5

i'-wi-p-aghe 'I make for you by means of (it)'  JOD 1890:716.2

ga=khe i'-wi-gaxdhi 'that I will slay you with'  JOD 1890:394.3
(I will kill you with that)


* Cases where i- governs the primary object.

i'-wi-hi=b-dha 'I bathe by means of you'  JOD 1890:234.4
(to stones to heat sweat lodge)


* Cases where i- does not seem to be clearly instrumental or even
locative, but the verb stem as a whole is transitive.  Probably i- is
originally locative in some way.

i'-wi-t?a=b=dha 'I hate you'  JOD 1890:669.3

i'-wi-iNga 'I ignored you'  JOD 1891:101.7

ukki'tte i'-wi-ppahaN 'nation(s) I know you'  JOD 1890:426.8

i'-wi-kkiz^az^e 'I threaten to attack you' JOD 1890:582.10 (Hmm.  I wonder
if this provides a root for waz^a'z^e 'Osage'? I'd always suspected
iz^a'z^e 'name', though maybe 'to name each other' is the basis of 'to
threaten to attack'.)

i'-wi-kkaN=i 'I contend with you(pl)'  JOD 1890:166.3


* Cases where whether i- governs the object depends on whether you see the
case as raising:

siNde=khe naNbe'=the i'-wi-kkaNttaN '(your) tail (my hand) I tie
you with'
JOD 1890:96.4-5
(I will tie your tail with my hands.)

dha-gha'ge i'-wi-kkuhe 'you cry I fear it for you'  JOD 1890:372.4
(I fear that you cry)

ppaN'kka=tta ne i'-wi-kkuhe 'Poncas-to you go I fear for you'  JOD
1890:651.6
(I fear that you will go to the Poncas)

wa-dh-xpadhiN i'-wi-kkuhe 'you are poor I fear it for you'  JOD 1891:97.3
(I fear that you are in want)

s^kaN maN-h-niN=ge bdhuga=xti i'-wi-b-dhigdhaN '(in) all your affairs I
rule over you'  JOD 1890:328.5-6


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 08:28:28 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:28:28 -0600
Subject: Sioux language font (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209282257230.1075-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.022828.0600.>

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Tim Dunnigan wrote:
> Dr. Matonunpa and his daughter Dr. Angela Wilson (Professor of History
> at Arizona State University) decided to mark unaspirated p, t, c, k
> with a dot positioned below the letter, while leaving their aspirated
> counterparts unmarked.

This tradition is employed in Buechel (with over dots).  It's essentially
the practice of Dorsey (under x's) and subsequently of LaFlesche (under
dots), though the (voiceless) unaspirated series they apply it to is also
tense/long and corresponds largely with Dakotan aspirates.

Interestingly, I have the impression that, with the possible exception
that LaFlesche may have been following Dorsey, these are all more or less
independent innovations.

Dotting unaspirated stops is a fairly economical approach in Dakotan,
where aspirates are common.  In Dakotan you could also use bdjg for
unaspirated stops, though that would interfere with using g as gh (voiced
velar fricative) and I suspect it would present practical problems due to
the clash with English usage, which is probably why ph/th/ch/kh bother
people, too.  In Omaha-Ponca it's easier to leave the tense stops unmarked
and mark the rare true aspirates specially, and this is the approach
adopted in the Macy Schools Omaha Orthography and the new Ponca
orthography, too.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Sep 29 15:07:32 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:07:32 -0500
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.100732.0500.>

Dear All,

My actual linguistic message is at the bottom of this
mess.  I just thought you might be entertained by the
literal-mindedness of the Tin Idiot at Colorado.  :-)
Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <listproc at lists.colorado.edu>
To: <rankin at KU.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,


>
> Dear user, every time you send email to list SIOUAN
the system analyzes
> the first line of your message in order to catch
misdirected requests.
> It appears that the first line in your message may
have been such a request:
>
> RUN INTO
>
> The first word, "RUN", matches one of ListProc's
command words, and as
> a result your mail was not distributed to the list.
If your intent was to send
> a request please resend it to the command processor
listproc at lists.Colorado.EDU (not
siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU).
>
> If your intent was to post a message to this list
please rephrase the first
> line of your message so that it does not look like a
request and resubmit it
> to siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU, and please accept our
apologies for the inconvenience.
>
> If you need further assistance please contact the
owner(s) john.koontz at colorado.edu .
>
> Your entire message is copied below.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
> >From rankin at ku.edu Sun Sep 29 08:59:18 2002
> Received: from lark.cc.ku.edu (root at lark.cc.ku.edu
[129.237.34.2])
> by hooch.Colorado.EDU
(8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/standard) with ESMTP id
g8TExHp11408
> for <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>; Sun, 29 Sep 2002
08:59:18 -0600 (MDT)
> Received: from robertra by lark.cc.ku.edu
(8.8.8/1.1.8.2/12Jan95-0207PM)
> id JAA0000026738; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:59:16 -0500
(CDT)
> Message-ID: <002a01c267c8$a8b43e20$e2b5ed81 at robertra>
> From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>
> To: "Siouan list" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> References:
<Pine.GSO.4.40.0209282326440.1075-100000 at spot.colorado.
edu>
> Subject: Re: transitivity, etc,
> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:58:21 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE
V5.00.2615.200
>
> > No idea, really, though I think not, as I've never
> run into any verbs with multiple patient inflection,
.
> . .
>
> You must mean something other than the experiencer
> "transitives" like 'resemble', 'be proud of', 'be
> afraid of', and the like -- of which there are quite
a
> number.
>
> I've been collecting them, and, as you know, they
> require a stative subject and stative object in
various
> of the languages.  The subject is inevitably an
> experiencer.  In English we usually (but not always)
> translate the object using a preposition.  The
> inventory differs quite considerably from language to
> language.  One of these days I'll have enough data
for
> a real paper on the subject, but this is a whole new
> aspect to the transitivity questions we have been
> discussing the past couple of days.  John makes a
> legitimate point in questioning the "transitivity" of
> these sorts of verbs.  For those of you who were at
the
> Regina Siouan Conference and have the handout of
Siouan
> statives I did, there is a partial inventory.  I'm
> doing an "improved" version of the stative paper at
> SSILA in Jan.
>
> Bob
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 20:30:04 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:30:04 -0600
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <004001c267c9$f2f7aac0$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.143004.0600.>

Rankin responding to Koontz:
> > > No idea, really, though I think not, as I've never
> > run into any verbs with multiple patient inflection,
> >
> > You must mean something other than the experiencer
> > "transitives" like 'resemble', 'be proud of', 'be
> > afraid of', and the like -- of which there are quite a
> > number

These particular xamples are Dakotan examples, though, right? And in
Dakotan these do inflect doubly, with a possibility of two pronominal
prefixes.

> I've been collecting them, and, as you know, they require a stative
> subject and stative object in various of the languages.  The subject
> is inevitably an experiencer.

I think I might have been obscure/  I definitely don't mean that I haven't
encountered this pattern - in fact it's what we've been talking about, in
part.  I just mean I don't recollect any examples where both arguments are
coded with pronominal prefixes.  One argument is always third person and
so either zero-coded (so to speak) or unencoded.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Sep 29 23:15:50 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:15:50 -0500
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.181550.0500.>

I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
does across Siouan.

If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
"stative" set.  If you're willing to set aside the
notion that all languages have a use for the notion
"subject", then you can generally deal with this set of
verbs by pointing out that there is a formal
distinction in Siouan between agents and experiencers.
This isn't a new argument.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: Siouan List <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity,
etc,


> Rankin responding to Koontz:
> > > > No idea, really, though I think not, as I've
never
> > > run into any verbs with multiple patient
inflection,
> > >
> > > You must mean something other than the
experiencer
> > > "transitives" like 'resemble', 'be proud of', 'be
> > > afraid of', and the like -- of which there are
quite a
> > > number
>
> These particular xamples are Dakotan examples,
though, right? And in
> Dakotan these do inflect doubly, with a possibility
of two pronominal
> prefixes.
>
> > I've been collecting them, and, as you know, they
require a stative
> > subject and stative object in various of the
languages.  The subject
> > is inevitably an experiencer.
>
> I think I might have been obscure/  I definitely
don't mean that I haven't
> encountered this pattern - in fact it's what we've
been talking about, in
> part.  I just mean I don't recollect any examples
where both arguments are
> coded with pronominal prefixes.  One argument is
always third person and
> so either zero-coded (so to speak) or unencoded.
>
> JEK
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Sep 29 23:24:12 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:24:12 -0500
Subject: Job vacancy.
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.182412.0500.>

The University of Kansas is recruiting for a
tenure-track phonologist for its Linguistics
Department.  I do not have the description with all the
usual legalese at hand, so those who might be
interested should check Linguist List where the
official description will (or has already) appear(ed).
A Ph.D. in Linguistics is required.  We already have
someone who does phonetics exclusively, so our hire
will have to have strong research interests in "real"
phonology (emphasis mine -- RLR).

Bob Rankin


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 03:55:42 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:55:42 -0700
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <002901c2680e$291a1040$c0b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.205542.0700.>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
>
>
> I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> does across Siouan.
>
> If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> "stative" set.

I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a 'subject',
a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the either
the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering difference
with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.

Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they work,
because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from many of
the Lakhota ones.

Shannon
(I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this works, it
requires further study'. <grin>)


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Sep 30 04:27:55 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:27:55 -0600
Subject: 'to lack' and Subject
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.222755.0600.>

I've noticed these constructions in OP, in all of which the aN Pat1
encoded first person of dhiNge' 'to lack' is paired with Agt1 agreement in
an auxiliary.  This at least demonstrates the Agt and Pat agreement can be
in concord, and also tends to suggest that the experiencer patient of
dhiNge' is the subject, since these auxililaries would concord with the
subject in other kinds of sentences, whether that subject was encoded as
agent (in transitive and active verbs) or (in stative verbs) as patient.
(It seems to me that subject is a primarily a syntactic notion, which is
not marked as such in Omaha-Ponca morphology.)

JOD 1890:261.13

mikka'he aNdhiN'ge     miNkhe dhaNs^ti
comb     I have lacked I PROG heretofore

I was without a comb.


JOD 1890:495.2

nie' aNdhiN'ge=xti  anaN'z^iN
pain I lack    very I stand

I have no pain at all.


JOD 1890:522.6

wadhi'ttaN ui'kkaN     aNdhiN'ge=xti= maN
work       t help him  I lack    very I AUX

I have no work to help him.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Sep 30 05:10:06 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:10:06 -0600
Subject: Verbs with Multiple Stative Concords
In-Reply-To: <002901c2680e$291a1040$c0b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.231006.0600.>

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> does across Siouan.

I believe there are no examples of such verbs in the Dorsey Omaha-Ponca
texts, and, though I tried hard, within my skills at the time anyway, to
elicit comparable forms in OP during fieldwork, I was unable.
This is all negative evidence, but I'm inclined to think that Omaha-Ponca
just does it differently here.

That said, Carolyn Quintero reports two cases of double statives in Osage.

wawebraN=pe 'we're (wa) tired of them (wa)' < ibraN 'be tired of'

aN-dhi'-oxta 'you love me'
< oxta 'to cherish'

However

wi'-oxta=i 'I love you'

follows the regular transitive paradigm, and the inclusive forms are

aN'oxta=pe 'we love him'
wao'xta=pe 'they like us'

which follow the regular transitive paradigm.

The closest I got to this pattern was

wi'=s^ti e'=wi-kkic^haNha
I   too  I'm as tall as you are

Note the reciprocal -kki-.  I got also

e'=s^ti e=aN'-kkic^haNha    'he's as tall as I am'
e'=s^ti dhi e'=dhi-thaNha  'he's as tall as you are' (no reciprocal)

For whatever reason, I didn't elicit the important form,

???? 'you're as tall as I am'

I think the problem was that my consultant wanted to revert to the same
form as 'I'm as tall as you are'.

I tried to fix this by doing 'bigger than' and got into problems with
a not unexpected lack of comparative forms, social issues as to the
appropriateness of making invidious comparisons, etc.

I also had

e'=dhi-dhaNska   b-dhiN    'I'm as big as you are'
you're that size I am

So I even wonder about e'=wi-kkic^haNha.

OP 'tired of' is at least an experiencer verb:

JOD 1891:61.3

wadhi'ttaN=the aNwaN'z^edha  he'ga=m=az^i
work           I am tired of little I not
I am not a little tired of the work.

The verb is aN Pat1 with u...z^edha.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Sep 30 05:28:40 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:28:40 -0600
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <000501c26835$403efb60$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.232840.0600.>

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a
> 'subject', a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance
> that the either the subject or object of these verbs is different in
> some way? A dative perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there
> some ordering difference with these? I have a set that is completely
> incomprehensible to me.

Rood & Taylor discuss some aspects of this in the draft version of their
Lakhota Sketch, but I couldn't locate the section in the published version
in HBNAI 17.

In OP there seems to be a constraint against having two patient
pronominals, with the experiencer taking precedence over the theme.  If
an experiencer is among the arguments, only it can be personal.  In
Dakotan there were at least some stems that allowed both arguments to be
pronominals, but the second person was always first (outer), as I recall
it.

Whatever principles or diagnostics enable you to select as subject the
agent if present, and the patient if not, will probably support the
experiencer as subject, too.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 12:28:59 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:28:59 -0600
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <000501c26835$403efb60$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.062859.0600.>

It's 6 am and I'm home without my books, but Shannon, you should know that
there has been some change in Lakhota in the last 60 years w/r/t these
forms (be proud of, etc.). When Boas and Deloria discuss them, they say
that only the sequence ni-ma is used (check out the facts about order --
the only thing I'm sure of is that they assert that only one combination
works).  However, some recent elicitation work has turned up ni-ma for
'you me' and ma-ni for 'I-you' for today's speakers (70-80 year olds).
Again, I need to check my notes to verify that the glosses are right --
all I remember now is that the order of affixes contrasted.  That may be
interference from English, but it may be a clue that the concept of
"subject" is lurking there somewhere.

David


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

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> >
> >
> > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > does across Siouan.
> >
> > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > "stative" set.
>
> I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a 'subject',
> a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the either
> the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering difference
> with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
>
> Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they work,
> because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from many of
> the Lakhota ones.
>
> Shannon
> (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this works, it
> requires further study'. <grin>)
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Sep 30 14:24:01 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:24:01 -0500
Subject: 'to lack' and Subject
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.092401.0500.>

Yes, these are very nice examples as they show
unequivocally that /dhiNge/ is NOT a 3rd person,
impersonal verb with a dative or patient-object.  That
is, /dhiNge/ cannot really be properly translated as
'lack' and /aN-dhiNge/ does not mean 'it is lacking to
me'.  John's right, I think; these serial VPs show that
/aN-/ here is an experiencer, not a dative, and, for
those of you who believe in the universality of
'subject' -- /aN-/ is a subject.

bob

> I've noticed these constructions in OP, in all of
which the aN Pat1
> encoded first person of dhiNge' 'to lack' is paired
with Agt1 agreement in
> an auxiliary.  This at least demonstrates the Agt and
Pat agreement can be
> in concord, and also tends to suggest that the
experiencer patient of
> dhiNge' is the subject, since these auxililaries
would concord with the
> subject in other kinds of sentences, whether that
subject was encoded as
> agent (in transitive and active verbs) or (in stative
verbs) as patient.
> (It seems to me that subject is a primarily a
syntactic notion, which is
> not marked as such in Omaha-Ponca morphology.)
>
> JOD 1890:261.13
>
> mikka'he aNdhiN'ge     miNkhe dhaNs^ti
> comb     I have lacked I PROG heretofore
>
> I was without a comb.
>
>
> JOD 1890:495.2
>
> nie' aNdhiN'ge=xti  anaN'z^iN
> pain I lack    very I stand
>
> I have no pain at all.
>
>
> JOD 1890:522.6
>
> wadhi'ttaN ui'kkaN     aNdhiN'ge=xti= maN
> work       t help him  I lack    very I AUX
>
> I have no work to help him.
>
>
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Sep 30 14:36:19 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:36:19 -0500
Subject: Verbs with Multiple Stative Concords
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.093619.0500.>

More nice examples.  While I haven't found as many of
these "double statives" as I'd like, I think there are
a few more such.  I guess I'm actually going to have to
dredge up my data.  Randy may have had some cases in
Crow, too.  He sent me a number of forms corresponding
to my list of "experiencer verbs", but I can't recall
the details.

One important and interesting note illustrated here in
Carolyn's data.  When you expect the sequence /aN+dhi/
signaling 'I acting upon you' with both pronominals
stative, the portmanteau, /wi-/ overrides in all the
Dhegiha data I have (which isn't much, as I've said).
Osage illustrates that here.  'I+you' is ALWAYS /wi-/,
whether in an active or stative construction.  Thus,
for those trying to elicit such things, it's important
to stick to the other pronominals:  'you+me', 'we+you',
'you+us', etc.

But I don't think the above condition applies to
Dakotan, does it?  I don't recall seeing /chi-/ as a
replacement form mi+ni or ma+ni, but there was some
invariant ordering going on in Dakotan that may explain
it.  David was the one who explained all this and he
can answer it.

Bob




----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:10 AM
Subject: Verbs with Multiple Stative Concords


> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern
with at
> > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're
not
> > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative
pronominals.
> > Membership in the class varies, just as
stative-status
> > does across Siouan.
>
> I believe there are no examples of such verbs in the
Dorsey Omaha-Ponca
> texts, and, though I tried hard, within my skills at
the time anyway, to
> elicit comparable forms in OP during fieldwork, I was
unable.
> This is all negative evidence, but I'm inclined to
think that Omaha-Ponca
> just does it differently here.
>
> That said, Carolyn Quintero reports two cases of
double statives in Osage.
>
> wawebraN=pe 'we're (wa) tired of them (wa)' < ibraN
'be tired of'
>
> aN-dhi'-oxta 'you love me'
> < oxta 'to cherish'
>
> However
>
> wi'-oxta=i 'I love you'
>
> follows the regular transitive paradigm, and the
inclusive forms are
>
> aN'oxta=pe 'we love him'
> wao'xta=pe 'they like us'
>
> which follow the regular transitive paradigm.
>
> The closest I got to this pattern was
>
> wi'=s^ti e'=wi-kkic^haNha
> I   too  I'm as tall as you are
>
> Note the reciprocal -kki-.  I got also
>
> e'=s^ti e=aN'-kkic^haNha    'he's as tall as I am'
> e'=s^ti dhi e'=dhi-thaNha  'he's as tall as you are'
(no reciprocal)
>
> For whatever reason, I didn't elicit the important
form,
>
> ???? 'you're as tall as I am'
>
> I think the problem was that my consultant wanted to
revert to the same
> form as 'I'm as tall as you are'.
>
> I tried to fix this by doing 'bigger than' and got
into problems with
> a not unexpected lack of comparative forms, social
issues as to the
> appropriateness of making invidious comparisons, etc.
>
> I also had
>
> e'=dhi-dhaNska   b-dhiN    'I'm as big as you are'
> you're that size I am
>
> So I even wonder about e'=wi-kkic^haNha.
>
> OP 'tired of' is at least an experiencer verb:
>
> JOD 1891:61.3
>
> wadhi'ttaN=the aNwaN'z^edha  he'ga=m=az^i
> work           I am tired of little I not
> I am not a little tired of the work.
>
> The verb is aN Pat1 with u...z^edha.
>
> JEK
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 18:06:26 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:06:26 -0600
Subject: details on new data on double statives
In-Reply-To: <000501c26835$403efb60$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.120626.0600.>

The message I sent this morning was pretty close to correct.  I'm
reporting material that Regina Pustet elicited in the past few weeks from
Neva Standing Bear.
	iya-ma-ni-khapha 'I am bigger/taller than you'
	iya-ni-ma-khapha 'you are bigger/taller than me'

The Boas and Deloria discussion begins on p. 77.

David

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

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> >
> >
> > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > does across Siouan.
> >
> > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > "stative" set.
>
> I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a 'subject',
> a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the either
> the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering difference
> with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
>
> Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they work,
> because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from many of
> the Lakhota ones.
>
> Shannon
> (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this works, it
> requires further study'. <grin>)
>


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 18:35:46 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:35:46 -0700
Subject: details on new data on double statives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209301155220.6812-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.113546.0700.>

Super! Thanks so much, David. I'm getting some similar ones to this, but not
invariably, unfortunately. I've decided that the ordering of person markers
(whether pronouns or not, it doesn't matter) is 3rd Person - 1st person -
2nd person - verb. This seems to work throughout the entire system but fails
for 'double-patient' verbs. But then, so does OSV (+ the one exception 'we -
you'). So I've not figured this one out yet. I'll put together my data at
some point (all of which I plan to recheck before then) and show y'all how
screwy it is. :)

Shannon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: September 30, 2002 11:06 AM
> To: Shannon West
> Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: details on new data on double statives
>
>
>
> The message I sent this morning was pretty close to correct.  I'm
> reporting material that Regina Pustet elicited in the past few weeks from
> Neva Standing Bear.
> 	iya-ma-ni-khapha 'I am bigger/taller than you'
> 	iya-ni-ma-khapha 'you are bigger/taller than me'
>
> The Boas and Deloria discussion begins on p. 77.
>
> David
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> > >
> > >
> > > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > > does across Siouan.
> > >
> > > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > > "stative" set.
> >
> > I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with
> a 'subject',
> > a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that
> the either
> > the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> > perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering
> difference
> > with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
> >
> > Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all
> how they work,
> > because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different
> from many of
> > the Lakhota ones.
> >
> > Shannon
> > (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this
> works, it
> > requires further study'. <grin>)
> >
>


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 18:35:53 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:35:53 -0700
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209292311140.20733-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.113553.0700.>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E
> Sent: September 29, 2002 10:29 PM
> To: Siouan List
> Subject: RE: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> > I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a
> > 'subject', a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance
> > that the either the subject or object of these verbs is different in
> > some way? A dative perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there
> > some ordering difference with these? I have a set that is completely
> > incomprehensible to me.
>
> Rood & Taylor discuss some aspects of this in the draft version of their
> Lakhota Sketch, but I couldn't locate the section in the published version
> in HBNAI 17.
>
> In OP there seems to be a constraint against having two patient
> pronominals, with the experiencer taking precedence over the theme.  If
> an experiencer is among the arguments, only it can be personal.  In
> Dakotan there were at least some stems that allowed both arguments to be
> pronominals, but the second person was always first (outer), as I recall
> it.
>
> Whatever principles or diagnostics enable you to select as subject the
> agent if present, and the patient if not, will probably support the
> experiencer as subject, too.

Thanks John. I haven't needed to use semantic roles for the most part, and
likely won't be (gotta work within theory restrictions, and for now that's
Minimalism).

There are definitely some verbs with 2 'stative' person markers - thawa 'to
own' comes to mind immediately. As I said in my note to David, I'll dredge
up this data again and post some of it for your
information/enjoyment/confusion/amusement at my pain of trying to figure it
out. ;)

Shannon


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 18:51:04 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:51:04 -0600
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMMEODCLAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.125104.0600.>

Shannon,
	I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.
Thus wa/ya are closest to the verb, and exhibit a lot of phonological
reductions.  Next to the left come ma/ni; to the left of that comes uNk,
and to the left of that comes wicha.  Whether uNk is treated as
subject or object depends on what it occurs with, not its sequence in
the string.  It's the affix, not its role, that has an ordering constraint.
With the double statives, the SOV order used for the rest of the language
seems to be adopted.
	I know that isn't going to fit into a tree very well.
	David
David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> Super! Thanks so much, David. I'm getting some similar ones to this, but not
> invariably, unfortunately. I've decided that the ordering of person markers
> (whether pronouns or not, it doesn't matter) is 3rd Person - 1st person -
> 2nd person - verb. This seems to work throughout the entire system but fails
> for 'double-patient' verbs. But then, so does OSV (+ the one exception 'we -
> you'). So I've not figured this one out yet. I'll put together my data at
> some point (all of which I plan to recheck before then) and show y'all how
> screwy it is. :)
>
> Shannon
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> > Sent: September 30, 2002 11:06 AM
> > To: Shannon West
> > Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: details on new data on double statives
> >
> >
> >
> > The message I sent this morning was pretty close to correct.  I'm
> > reporting material that Regina Pustet elicited in the past few weeks from
> > Neva Standing Bear.
> > 	iya-ma-ni-khapha 'I am bigger/taller than you'
> > 	iya-ni-ma-khapha 'you are bigger/taller than me'
> >
> > The Boas and Deloria discussion begins on p. 77.
> >
> > David
> >
> > David S. Rood
> > Dept. of Linguistics
> > Univ. of Colorado
> > 295 UCB
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> > USA
> > rood at colorado.edu
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > > > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > > > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > > > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > > > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > > > does across Siouan.
> > > >
> > > > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > > > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > > > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > > > "stative" set.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with
> > a 'subject',
> > > a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that
> > the either
> > > the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> > > perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering
> > difference
> > > with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
> > >
> > > Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all
> > how they work,
> > > because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different
> > from many of
> > > the Lakhota ones.
> > >
> > > Shannon
> > > (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this
> > works, it
> > > requires further study'. <grin>)
> > >
> >
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Sep 30 19:24:49 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:24:49 -0500
Subject: ordering of person markers
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.142449.0500.>

> I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.

AND this problem extends far beyond just the pronominals.  It clearly DOES
apply to the pronominals, but it is also the determining factor in post
verbal clitic ordering too.  There is a paper coauthored by me, John Boyle,
Randy and John Koontz that makes this point among others.  I've been
preaching it in most of the papers I've given over the past 3 or 4 years.

Synchronists (and I'm reacting to the situation in my own dept. here, guys)
have taken to believing that word/morpheme order is strictly and 100%
governed by syntactic rules -- often simply reflecting "UG".  To anyone with
an ounce of serious work in historical linguistics, it is obvious that
constituent ordering is often the result of historical fluke, reanalysis,
boundary collapse, etc.  Without mastery of the historical development of
the syntax of a language, linguists will quite generally fail in trying to
differentiate what orderings evince aspects of UG and what orderings are
accidents of history.  And they don't want to hear this.  And in my dept.
they REALLY don't want to hear it -- our syntactician's degree is in
psychology, and she's never had a course in historical ling.  She says
openly that it's just "that old fusty outmoded Grimm's Law stuff."

I just made an enemy at out Colloquium when a (very smart) Chinese student
presented a paper "showing" that the ordering of the infamous morpheme /ba/
in Chinese was derived from UG.  I rashly pointed out that "ba" is known to
have been a verb at one time, and, that it is still located syntactically
EXACTLY where verbs in Chinese sentences have always been located.
Historically, additional phrases, etc. have been added to the end of the
clause, but "ba" has never moved.  It hasn't undergone a "universal"
movement rule as it has become grammaticalized; it just never budged at all.
It wasn't a popular comment.

So the point David has perceptively made here is not trivial at all.  It is
central to our continuing understand of synchronic syntax in all languages.

Off my soapbox now. . . .

Bob


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 21:43:02 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:43:02 -0700
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209301244020.6812-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.144302.0700.>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: September 30, 2002 11:51 AM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: ordering of person markers
>
>
>
> Shannon,
> 	I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
> theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
> they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.
> Thus wa/ya are closest to the verb, and exhibit a lot of phonological
> reductions.  Next to the left come ma/ni; to the left of that comes uNk,
> and to the left of that comes wicha.  Whether uNk is treated as
> subject or object depends on what it occurs with, not its sequence in
> the string.  It's the affix, not its role, that has an ordering
> constraint.
> With the double statives, the SOV order used for the rest of the language
> seems to be adopted.
> 	I know that isn't going to fit into a tree very well.

I know that this is the diachronic explanation, but that doesn't offer a
synchronic explanation. The speakers of the language don't know the
historical background, and can't use that to figure out which positions
these affixes appear. Your diachronic explanation would have to be fitted
with a templatic account. I don't so much mind templates, but they're not
exactly popular right now, if you know what I mean. Right now, the general
feeling is that there should be rules that the learner can use to figure out
where things go rather than templates to learn.

The SOV order isn't fixed for the double statives in my data, but I do need
to check this out again.

Shannon


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 22:46:00 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:46:00 -0600
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMGEOGCLAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.164600.0600.>

See Bob's Soapbox Address.  The synchronic explanation IS the diachronic
one -- that's the order that speakers learn and use.  Templates may not be
popular, but they are what people do!!  I'm convinced that these things
are memorized as chunks (wichun 'we-them', chi 'I-you"), etc., even in
English, where 'you and I' is learned as a unit and I is no longer
declinable ("for you and I" is used by speakers who would never say "for I").

Grrrr.




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

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> > Sent: September 30, 2002 11:51 AM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: ordering of person markers
> >
> >
> >
> > Shannon,
> > 	I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
> > theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
> > they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.
> > Thus wa/ya are closest to the verb, and exhibit a lot of phonological
> > reductions.  Next to the left come ma/ni; to the left of that comes uNk,
> > and to the left of that comes wicha.  Whether uNk is treated as
> > subject or object depends on what it occurs with, not its sequence in
> > the string.  It's the affix, not its role, that has an ordering
> > constraint.
> > With the double statives, the SOV order used for the rest of the language
> > seems to be adopted.
> > 	I know that isn't going to fit into a tree very well.
>
> I know that this is the diachronic explanation, but that doesn't offer a
> synchronic explanation. The speakers of the language don't know the
> historical background, and can't use that to figure out which positions
> these affixes appear. Your diachronic explanation would have to be fitted
> with a templatic account. I don't so much mind templates, but they're not
> exactly popular right now, if you know what I mean. Right now, the general
> feeling is that there should be rules that the learner can use to figure out
> where things go rather than templates to learn.
>
> The SOV order isn't fixed for the double statives in my data, but I do need
> to check this out again.
>
> Shannon
>


From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Mon Sep 30 23:11:50 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:11:50 -0700
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209301641130.17586-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.161150.0700.>

I can't help saying Hooray for Bob and David! It's what Marianne and I have
been saying over and over and over for years. How can these so-called
"theoreticians" be so myopic? It continues to mystify me.
Wally


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:05:35 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:05:35 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330101b9785792100c@[160.94.64.17]>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.150535.0100.>

I only know that cement, for which can share similar applications
as gypsum is known as iNyaN makha 'stone clay'.
Bruce
On 8 Aug 2002, at 12:17, Patricia Albers wrote:

> Would anyone on the listserve happen to know the Lakota word for
> gypsum, also loosely called mica?
>
> Pat Albers
> Chair, Department of American Indian Studies
> 2 Scott Hall
> University of Minnesota
> Minneapolis, MN 55414
> (612)-625-8050


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:08:39 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:08:39 +0100
Subject: Proverbs (whistling)
In-Reply-To: <20020808.124938.-170213.7.jggoodtracks@juno.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.150839.0100.>

Somewhere  I found a sentence jo omani 'he walks whistling' (as
the spirits of the dead do), though I'm not sure where from.
Bruce
On 8 Aug 2002, at 12:38, Jimm G GoodTracks wrote:

> I was going through some old EM's, and came to your responce below.  I
> would be interested in a list of these "sayings" from the older Ponca in
> White Eagle.  I wonder how many I would recognize, and how similar/
> different they may be from Otoe-Missouria, Ioways and Pawnees?
> Jimm GoodTracks
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:26:28 -0600 "TLeonard-tulsa.com"
> <tleonard at prodigy.net> writes:
> >  JEK wrote:
> >  I seem to recall a comparable warning for either Dakota or Omaha along
> the
> > lines of "Don't whistle, you sound like a ghost."  Presumably sounding
> like
> > a ghost is bad because one either becomes one or summons one.
> >
> >  I've heard similar admonishments from older Ponca folks around White
> Eagle,
> > Oklahoma. The one I always heard was: "Don't whistle while your outside
> at
> > night. You'll attract ghosts."
> >  The one I always loved was: "Don't eat too much fish. They'll make
> your
> > hair  grey."
> >
> >  Have recordings of these and others in Ponca.
> >  TML
>


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:12:58 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:12:58 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0208082129320.7422-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.151258.0100.>

John
Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s
a guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of
course chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
Bruce
On 8 Aug 2002, at 22:35, Koontz John E wrote:

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


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 14:15:21 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:15:21 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <f04330100b979a3367e59@[128.101.249.209]>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.151521.0100.>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020903/8f4b98a7/attachment.bin>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Sep  3 15:37:33 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:37:33 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <3D74D17A.3121.13AFE41@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.093733.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
> guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
> veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
> chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.

What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.

JEK


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Sep  3 16:35:51 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:35:51 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209030935060.18993-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.173551.0100.>

Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'

Bruce
On 3 Sep 2002, at 9:37, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> > Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
> > guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
> > veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
> > chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
>
> What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
> I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.
>
> JEK
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Sep  3 17:39:31 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:39:31 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <3D74F2F7.16188.1BDD0DF@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.113931.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'

Oops, sounds like I was barking up the wrong tree.  The OP 'bank' word is
maNa' (< *maNha').  The 'land', 'mud, mire', 'soil', 'clay', 'bank/cliff'
terms seem to be shuffled from one language to another in Mississippi
Valley, though I've never set myself down to try to work it out.

Forms like maNa' are one reason it's hard to use just a regular n to mark
nasality in OP.  The other reason is that ma and maN contrast, thanks to
the *W > m, *R > n shift.  However, I'm not sure na and naN do contrast at
present.  Dorsey seems to have felt that they did in the 1880s.


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Tue Sep  3 18:12:49 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:12:49 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.131249.0500.>

Is there any relationship between La. makha and OP
maNdhiN'ka, 'earth', 'soil', 'clay' or (I think)
'season'?

OP maz^aN', in my experience, seems to mean 'land'
in the sense of 'territory' or 'region'.  Offhand,
I can't think of anywhere I've seen it used for
'soil'.

Rory

> Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'

> Bruce
> On 3 Sep 2002, at 9:37, Koontz John E wrote:

>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
>> > Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
>> > guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
>> > veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
>> > chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
>>
>> What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
>> I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.
>>
>> JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Tue Sep  3 19:57:04 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:57:04 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <OF414A6048.E37C0346-ON86256C29.0062D614@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.135704.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> Is there any relationship between La. makha and OP maNdhiN'ka,
> 'earth', 'soil', 'clay' or (I think) 'season'?

Good question!  I can see I'm going to have to look at this.  It would
mean comparing Pre-Da *maNh-ka to Pre-Dh *maN(r)iNh-ka.  I suspect, with
no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
wac^hi in OP.

> OP maz^aN', in my experience, seems to mean 'land' in the sense of
> 'territory' or 'region'.  Offhand, I can't think of anywhere I've seen
> it used for 'soil'.

Yeah, like Genoa, NE 'ppaN'dhiN ma(N)'z^aN'.  I'll have to see where I got
that 'soil' idea, if I didn't hallucinate it.

JEK


From Rgraczyk at aol.com  Tue Sep  3 23:31:13 2002
From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:31:13 EDT
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.193113.EDT.>

In a message dated 9/3/2002 1:58:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:


> I suspect, with
> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
> wac^hi in OP.
>

It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.

Randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020903/da0b8eba/attachment.htm>

From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep  4 00:11:45 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:11:45 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.191145.0500.>

> I suspect, with
> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance
homophone, like the two
> wac^hi in OP.
> It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means
'season' in Crow.

It's also the common Siouan root for 'gamebird' and is
typically found in 'turkey' and several other large,
hunted birds.

Bob


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Sep  4 00:35:06 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:35:06 -0500
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.193506.0500.>

> In a message dated 9/3/2002 1:58:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:
>
>> I suspect, with
>> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
>> wac^hi in OP.
>
>
> It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.
>
> Randy

I seem to recall that our own English term "world" is
derived from old Germanic wer-ald, meaning "man-age".

I wonder if the background concept in these cases isn't
something like 'the universe of human experience, at
least on this earth and in this cycle of time'.  That
would allow semantic extensions both to the planet and
the material comprising it, and to time periods like
seasons, years or epochs.

Rory


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Sep  4 02:00:01 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:00:01 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <TUE.3.SEP.2002.210001.0500.>

>> The meanings also seem close enough to be
>> variants of a single verb concept.  Just
>> out of curiosity, suppose we had an original
>> Proto-Siouan verb *?iN, meaning to bear
>> on the back.
>
>> . . . adding some sort of /ki-/ particle in
>> front to get *ki?iN' or some such, meaning
>> literally 'carry one's own',
>
>> . . . the /i/ in /ki-/ is eventually schwa-ed
>> and elided, leaving *k?iN, to pack something
>> on the back, vs. *?iN, meaning to wear on the
>> back, as two separate verb roots.  Does this
>> hypothesis sound at all plausible?

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

If the situation in other MVS languages is
inconsistent with the hypothesis I proposed,
then that will shoot down the hypothesis;
that was what I was asking about.  But I
don't think what I suggested is anywhere
nearly as far-fetched as the flying fox feet
of our Roman grammarians.  This weekend I
browsed a few dictionaries of Old World
languages, looking for cases where the word
for 'wear' was the same as the word for 'carry'.

I already knew that these were the same in
German with the word 'tragen', which is also
cognate to our word 'drag'.  It turns out that
Dutch also uses 'dragen' for both 'carry' and
'wear'; Swedish uses 'baera'; French uses
'porter'; Spanish uses both 'llevar' and
'traer' in both senses; Czech, Serbo-Croatian
and Russian all use something like 'nosit';
and ancient Latin used 'gerere'.  Thus, it
seems that equivalence of the concepts 'carry'
and 'wear' is the norm in Germanic, Slavic and
Romance, the three most wide-spread European
language groups.  Our own word 'wear' comes
from Old English 'werian', which meant both
'wear' and 'carry' according to my little
American Heritage Dictionary.

Outside of these, equation of these two
concepts was less common.  I did not find it
in Basque, Irish, Latvian, Turkish, Japanese
or Swahili.  I did find it, however, in
Estonian and Kurdish.

Hence, it seems that the concept 'wear' very
commonly, but certainly not always, derives
from the concept 'carry'.  To have two roots
so similar in MVS, one meaning 'wear' and the
other meaning 'carry', where one may simply
be the reflexive version of the other, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, is highly
suggestive of an earlier equivalence here.
This would not detract in any way from the
fact that these are distinct roots in the
daughter languages, as Bob pointed out earlier.

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep  4 15:17:12 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:17:12 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.101712.0500.>

'wear' and 'carry' are certainly related in lots of
languages.  My only problem is with the putative Siouan
derivation.  There are lots of KI's in MVS, but I'm not
crazy about the semantics of *k- here without parallel
cases.  If we're saying it's derivation, then maybe it
will be possible to find other cases without stretching
meanings too much.

Bob

> If the situation in other MVS languages is
> inconsistent with the hypothesis I proposed,
> then that will shoot down the hypothesis;
> that was what I was asking about.  But I
> don't think what I suggested is anywhere
> nearly as far-fetched as the flying fox feet
> of our Roman grammarians.  This weekend I
> browsed a few dictionaries of Old World
> languages, looking for cases where the word
> for 'wear' was the same as the word for 'carry'.
>
> I already knew that these were the same in
> German with the word 'tragen', which is also
> cognate to our word 'drag'.  It turns out that
> Dutch also uses 'dragen' for both 'carry' and
> 'wear'; Swedish uses 'baera'; French uses
> 'porter'; Spanish uses both 'llevar' and
> 'traer' in both senses; Czech, Serbo-Croatian
> and Russian all use something like 'nosit';
> and ancient Latin used 'gerere'.  Thus, it
> seems that equivalence of the concepts 'carry'
> and 'wear' is the norm in Germanic, Slavic and
> Romance, the three most wide-spread European
> language groups.  Our own word 'wear' comes
> from Old English 'werian', which meant both
> 'wear' and 'carry' according to my little
> American Heritage Dictionary.
>
> Outside of these, equation of these two
> concepts was less common.  I did not find it
> in Basque, Irish, Latvian, Turkish, Japanese
> or Swahili.  I did find it, however, in
> Estonian and Kurdish.
>
> Hence, it seems that the concept 'wear' very
> commonly, but certainly not always, derives
> from the concept 'carry'.  To have two roots
> so similar in MVS, one meaning 'wear' and the
> other meaning 'carry', where one may simply
> be the reflexive version of the other, in the
> absence of evidence to the contrary, is highly
> suggestive of an earlier equivalence here.
> This would not detract in any way from the
> fact that these are distinct roots in the
> daughter languages, as Bob pointed out earlier.
>
> Rory
>
>
>


From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Wed Sep  4 16:03:06 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:03:06 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.110306.0500.>

> 'wear' and 'carry' are certainly related in lots of
> languages.  My only problem is with the putative Siouan
> derivation.  There are lots of KI's in MVS, but I'm not
> crazy about the semantics of *k- here without parallel
> cases.  If we're saying it's derivation, then maybe it
> will be possible to find other cases without stretching
> meanings too much.
>
> Bob

Alright, so concretely, how should we approach this?
Are you saying that we should look for other MVS verb
pairs of { *?V- | *k?V- } to see if they seem
semantically related?  If so, do we have enough such
pairs to produce a reasonable database?

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep  4 18:56:58 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:56:58 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.135658.0500.>

> Alright, so concretely, how should we approach this?
> Are you saying that we should look for other MVS verb
> pairs of { *?V- | *k?V- } to see if they seem
> semantically related?  If so, do we have enough such
> pairs to produce a reasonable database?

Finding other glottal stems with the alternation would
be ideal, but there are so few viable glottal stems
that you'd probably want to extend the search beyond
them.  I think the phonology works, e.g., ki+?uN > k?uN
'article+did/do'.  I'm more worried about the precise
semantics in the case of 'carry' > 'wear'.  I am a
little apprehensive about stretching 'ones own' or
'oneself' to yield the meaning we get.  Ihave to admit
I haven't given it a lot of thought. . .

It occurs to me that I've seen various other verbs of
wearing and nouns derived from them for articles of
clothing.  Might pay to look at them too.

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Sep  4 23:25:53 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:25:53 -0600
Subject: waiN
In-Reply-To: <001101c25444$d92e6180$e2b5ed81@computer>
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.172553.0600.>

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> Finding other glottal stems with the alternation would
> be ideal, but there are so few viable glottal stems
> that you'd probably want to extend the search beyond
> them.

k? in

*s^ik?e 'woman's brother-in-law'
*k?iN 'pack, carry on back'
*k?e 'dig'
*hki?uN 'gamble'  (*k?oN in Dhegiha)
*k?u 'give'
*yook?i 'to roast'
*k?a... *k?o... *k?e... in onomatopeics for grating noises
*ak?a 'south or west wind'

The most promising look to be 'dig'. 'roast'. and, of course, 'pack on the
back'.  'Give' might be a dative, but probably not a suus-form.

===

*?iN 'wear about the shoulders'
*?o 'hit and wound'
*?uN 'do/be'

I think there's a longer list of *?-stems on the list a few years ago.
I also surveyed OP carying verbs a while back this year.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Sep  4 23:53:25 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:53:25 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <89.1d4a65fb.2aa6a041@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.175325.0600.>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote:
> John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:
> > I suspect, with no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone,
> > ...

> It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.

It looks like the chance homophone theory is out the door!

Teton        ma(N)khaN' 'ground, earth'
             o'ma(N)khaN 'a season, winter or summer; a half year season'

Omaha-Ponca  maNdhiN'kka 'ground, earth'
             umaN'dhiNkka 'season'

Osage        maN[dh]iN'hka 'earth'
             omaN'iNhka 'year'

Kaw          maN[y]iN'kka 'earth'
             omaN'iNkka 'year, season'

Quapaw       ma(N)niN'kka 'earth'
             oma(N)'nikka 'year'

Winnebago    maNaN 'earth, ground, year'

It looks homophony or the a locative form (which would seem to require a
verbal root for those who are interested) is the rule.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Sep  5 01:09:42 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:09:42 -0600
Subject: Earth
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.190942.0600.>

I promised I would look up some earth words (as opposed to dirty words).

*htVNt- 'steppe'

Dakota tiN'ta 'prairie'
OP ttaN'de 'ground'
Ks ttaN'j^e 'high ground'
Osage htaN'ce 'earth, ground, treeless prairie'
(?) Quapaw ttaNna' 'earth'

[Note IO has abra'hge 'flat on it' for 'plains']

*maN- 'soil'

OP maN- 'earth' (in compounds)
Osage maN- 'earth' (in compounds like 'dust', 'mud')
Quapaw ma- 'earth' (in compounds like 'mud')
IO maN 'ground, dust, soil, earth'
Winnebago maNaN 'earth. ground', also in compounds like 'dust', 'dirt',
    'sand')

*maNh-ka

Dakotan makha' 'ground, earth, soil, the earth, land, clay'
(?) IO makhaN 'clay' (irregular dev?) (not maNkha ~ maNkhaN 'medicine')

*maN(r)iN'h-ka 'earth' (Dhegiha only)

OP maN(dh)iNkka 'earth'
Osage maN(dh)iNhka 'earth, soil, clay'
Qu mani'kka 'earth, soil, ground'

*maN-ka 'bank'

Winnebago moo'ga 'bank'
Winnebago moo'gas^uc^ 'Red Banks (legendary homeland)

*maN'ha 'bank' (?)

(?) Dakotan mayaN' 'bank' (irregular development?)
OP maNa' 'bank'
Osage maN'ha 'cliff, west'
Quapaw maN'a(zi) 'cliff'
IO maN'ha 'earth, ground, dirt', also 'mud, dust' (in compounds)
Winnebago maNaNha' 'mud'
(?) Winnebago mooha(j^a) 'hard ground'

*maNgh- 'field'

Dakotan ma'gha 'field'
Ioway-Otoe maNxe 'field'
Winnebago maNaNx 'field'
(?) Winnebago maNaNgh(a)- (in compounds) 'field' (irregular development?)

[Note that Dhegiha has forms like OP u'?e, Osage o'we < *wo'k?e 'wherein
to dig' for 'field']

*maN'z^aN 'land, country'

(?) Dakotan maya' 'bank' (irregular development?)
OP maNz^aN' 'country, land'
Osage maN'z^aN 'country, world, land'
Quapaw maz^aN', maz^oN' 'land'
IO ma'yaN 'earth, land, country, clay'
IO ma'yaN s^uj^e 'Red Earth' (legendary homeland)

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Sep  5 01:13:52 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:13:52 -0600
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209041728350.8221-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.SEP.2002.191352.0600.>

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> Winnebago    maNaN 'earth, ground, year'

I found the missing Ioway-Otoe form:

maN 'ground, dirt, soil' and also:  'weather'

This may be the missing link.  'Season' and 'year' are a phase and the
cycle of 'weather', which is 'something in the ground' or 'something in
the land'.


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Sep  5 14:21:12 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:21:12 -0500
Subject: waiN
Message-ID: <THU.5.SEP.2002.092112.0500.>

No, I'm just talking about ?-stems, not glottalized
stop stems.

In addition to the ones you list, there's 'think',
which has a preverb of some kind but it's the ?iN that
is conjugated.  And there's our mysterious *?e: 'be??'

> k? in
>
> *s^ik?e 'woman's brother-in-law'
> *k?iN 'pack, carry on back'
> *k?e 'dig'
> *hki?uN 'gamble'  (*k?oN in Dhegiha)
> *k?u 'give'
> *yook?i 'to roast'
> *k?a... *k?o... *k?e... in onomatopeics for grating
noises
> *ak?a 'south or west wind'
>
> The most promising look to be 'dig'. 'roast'. and, of
course, 'pack on the
> back'.  'Give' might be a dative, but probably not a
suus-form.
>
> ===
>
> *?iN 'wear about the shoulders'
> *?o 'hit and wound'
> *?uN 'do/be'
>
> I think there's a longer list of *?-stems on the list
a few years ago.
> I also surveyed OP carying verbs a while back this
year.
>
> JEK
>


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Fri Sep  6 09:49:58 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:49:58 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <OF414A6048.E37C0346-ON86256C29.0062D614@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.SEP.2002.104958.0100.>

The stem makha 'earth, soil, world' also appears in omakha 'year,
season' referring to the yearly cycle of earthly change, I presume.
Cree has a similar semantic link between a word for earth and a
word for year, though I can't remember the word.

Bruce

On 3 Sep 2002, at 13:12, rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:

>
> Is there any relationship between La. makha and OP
> maNdhiN'ka, 'earth', 'soil', 'clay' or (I think)
> 'season'?
>
> OP maz^aN', in my experience, seems to mean 'land'
> in the sense of 'territory' or 'region'.  Offhand,
> I can't think of anywhere I've seen it used for
> 'soil'.
>
> Rory
>
> > Maya means 'bank' or 'cliff'' as in maya gliheya 'steep bank'
>
> > Bruce
> > On 3 Sep 2002, at 9:37, Koontz John E wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
> >> > Interesting that you said makha saN, I was going to hazard that a s a
> >> > guess.  The white cliffs of Dover, so I was informed by a Lakota
> >> > veteran who had seen them, are called Maya SaN.  They are of course
> >> > chalk, but look much like gypsum from a distance.
> >>
> >> What's the difference between mayaN and makha?  'Earth' vs. 'clay'?
> >> I'm guessing 'earth' from OP maz^aN 'land' and, I think, 'soil'.
> >>
> >> JEK
>
>
>
>


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Fri Sep  6 11:30:47 2002
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:30:47 +0100
Subject: gypsum or "mica"
In-Reply-To: <OF8179F8F3.9C1ACF54-ON86256C2A.00008263@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.SEP.2002.123047.0100.>

Time and tide wait for no man.  tid is 'time' in Norwegian and time
is 'hour' in Norwegian.  The Arabic word wagt 'time' can be the
extention of 'bad times' mean 'drought'. I hope all this helps
Bruce

On 3 Sep 2002, at 19:35, rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:

>
> > In a message dated 9/3/2002 1:58:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> > John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes:
> >
> >> I suspect, with
> >> no real evidence, that 'season' is a chance homophone, like the two
> >> wac^hi in OP.
> >
> >
> > It's interesting that awa' 'earth, land' also means 'season' in Crow.
> >
> > Randy
>
> I seem to recall that our own English term "world" is
> derived from old Germanic wer-ald, meaning "man-age".
>
> I wonder if the background concept in these cases isn't
> something like 'the universe of human experience, at
> least on this earth and in this cycle of time'.  That
> would allow semantic extensions both to the planet and
> the material comprising it, and to time periods like
> seasons, years or epochs.
>
> Rory
>
>
>


Dr. Bruce Ingham
Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
SOAS


From ahartley at d.umn.edu  Sat Sep  7 15:23:38 2002
From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:23:38 -0500
Subject: Chiwere
Message-ID: <SAT.7.SEP.2002.102338.0500.>

Harking back to our complicated and fascinating discussion of the
etymology of Chiwere (and Dhegiha) in Feb.-Mar. 2000, can someone please
tell me the current pronunciation of the name *in English*: especially,
is the initial consonant voiced or not, and is the stress on the second
syllable or the first?

Thanks, Alan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sat Sep  7 16:08:56 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:08:56 -0600
Subject: Chiwere
In-Reply-To: <3D7A19FA.BB4B6078@d.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.7.SEP.2002.100856.0600.>

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Alan H. Hartley wrote:
> Harking back to our complicated and fascinating discussion of the
> etymology of Chiwere (and Dhegiha) in Feb.-Mar. 2000, can someone please
> tell me the current pronunciation of the name *in English*: especially,
> is the initial consonant voiced or not, and is the stress on the second
> syllable or the first?

For linguists, the pronunciation is [c^<lax i>'w<lax e>ri] or [c^<lax
i>'weiri].  The c^ isn't aspirated, because of being before an unaccented
vowel.  (I'm using the '+syllable convention.)  I'm not aware that the
term is used in English except in a learned fashion, by linguists,
anthropologists, and archeologists.  The usual version in popular use (by
the people, of the people) is probably Otoe, for which I have ['outou]
with the usual reduction of t to tapped r.

Jimm Good Tracks would be a better source than I on actual day to day use
of any of these terms - when used and how pronounced.


From jggoodtracks at juno.com  Mon Sep  9 02:43:55 2002
From: jggoodtracks at juno.com (Jimm G GoodTracks)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:43:55 -0500
Subject: Chiwere
Message-ID: <SUN.8.SEP.2002.214355.0500.>

As John correctly indicateds, the English term used by the People in and
of the community is "Otoe" or "Otoe-Missouria".  The latter is
particularily true of those few families that can trace a direct link to
Missouria ancestors.  This is usually indicated by present day surnames.

When speaking in the language, the contemporary term used by the People
is "Jiwere", as in:
Jiwe're hiNch^e' to.  Let's speak (in) Otoe.  (dual)
The linguistic term "Chiwere" is not understood, not does it have
significance.  It is a mispronunciation which has now passed into a
popular legitimatized academic usage.
On occasions when the last fluent speaker of the language, Truman Daily,
would address the People at a large gathering, such as a tribal dance, he
would address all gathered, saying:

Ho, Jiwere Nyut^achi.  Warigroxiwi ke.   Tahena hine granax^unna.
Greetings, Otoe-Missouria People, I pray for you (gloss: I am greatly
thankful for your attention).
For those (of you who) listening to me.

jgt

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:08:56 -0600 (MDT) Koontz John E
<John.Koontz at colorado.edu> writes:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Alan H. Hartley wrote:
> > Harking back to our complicated and fascinating discussion of the
> > etymology of Chiwere (and Dhegiha) in Feb.-Mar. 2000, can someone
please
> > tell me the current pronunciation of the name *in English*:
especially,
> > is the initial consonant voiced or not, and is the stress on the
second
> > syllable or the first?
>
> For linguists, the pronunciation is [c^<lax i>'w<lax e>ri] or [c^<lax
> i>'weiri].  The c^ isn't aspirated, because of being before an
unaccented
> vowel.  (I'm using the '+syllable convention.)  I'm not aware that the
> term is used in English except in a learned fashion, by linguists,
> anthropologists, and archeologists.  The usual version in popular use
(by
> the people, of the people) is probably Otoe, for which I have ['outou]
> with the usual reduction of t to tapped r.
>
> Jimm Good Tracks would be a better source than I on actual day to day
use
> of any of these terms - when used and how pronounced.
>
>
>


From bruguier at usd.edu  Tue Sep 24 20:11:15 2002
From: bruguier at usd.edu (Bruguier, Leonard)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:11:15 -0500
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <TUE.24.SEP.2002.151115.0500.>

hey hey folks: is there a font out there that i can use to transcribe some
of my tapes in Dakota? any help appreciated. with respect, horse

Leonard R. Bruguier
605.677.5945, 605.677.6525 FAX
www.usd.edu/iais/
"Life is good, I aint had a bad day since '68." St. Lefty



-----Original Message-----
From: Rankin, Robert L [mailto:rankin at ku.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:02 AM
To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu '
Subject: RE: Omaha athe, etc.


>So we have (pre-)historically two different words that come
out as /the/ in OP.  One is the positional, 'standing inanimate',
(or 'plural, bundled').  The other is a cognate of Hidatsa /rahe/,
which means 'to say that'.  The former modifies nouns.  The
latter works with verbs to convey the sense that evidently the
verb took place.  By analogy, other positionals have also been
introduced into the post-verbal slot with the same EVIDENTIAL
meaning.  So any time we find a positional after a verb in OP,
the implication is that the verb 'evidently' happened.  Is this
a valid re-statement of what you're saying?

Yep, exactly!

>For /athe'/, it looks like we have two hypotheses:
     1)  It is the 1st-person inflected form of /the/.
     2)  It is a separate, uninflected particle.

I think I'll start by trying Catherine's excellent suggestion of

     aNzhaN' aNthe'

My only caveat here has to do with the fact that the verb 'sleep' here has a
final nasal vowel.  Since the beginning of the putative 'we must have slept'
contains the same vowel, there is some possibility of confusion on the part
of speakers.  Maybe some verb that ends in an oral V would improve chances.

Bob


From wablenica at mail.ru  Tue Sep 24 21:56:15 2002
From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:56:15 +0400
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.015615.0400.>

Hi, Leonard,

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruguier, Leonard <bruguier at usd.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: Sioux language font


> hey hey folks: is there a font out there that i can use to transcribe some
> of my tapes in Dakota? any help appreciated. with respect, horse
>

The problem in LDN texts is that there are lotsa orthographies for it
(Colorado, Buechel, WhiteHat, Boas/Deloria; NetSiouan, Txakini).
There are several fonts online that can be utilized for specific LDN
characters, but the problem is in keying in these characters rather than the
choice of the fonts.
You have to install keyboard driver for specific font, or design the driver
yourself. Else you should insert the non-ABC characters by pressing some
weird keystrokes like Alt-154 (s) or recording macros in Microsoft Word or
other text editor.
Besides, you can have problems with exporting the texts into other
applications, or submitting the texts to somebody - his/her computer can be
devoid of the font or can have problems with installing it.
Personally, I prefer to use some intermediate, internal coding using plain
ABC that consistently and easily can be converted into other spellings
LATER.
E.g.: nasalized vowels - a~, i~, u~
aspirated stops: p*, t*, c*, k* (if you discern weak and strong aspiration
you should design additional markers)
others: s*, z*, h*, g*.
Using these conventions you can mix Dakota and English text and then convert
the Dakota part by some global replacements.
Other spellings are not so easy to convert: for example, if you use "ph, th,
ch, kh" for aspirated stops, you can spoil your "PHonetics, THat, CHeck"
occurences; using aN, iN, uN for nasals you can oversee sentence-initial
"ANpetu" or convert "ANOTHER" into something like "A~ot*er". :-)

However these are useful links for fonts and keyboards:
John Koontz. Siouan fonts:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/fonts/ssfonts.htm - supports both Colorado
and Buechel
Titus Cyberbit Basic:
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/unicode/tituut.asp - Standard Unicode
compatible, has full phonetic set, plus full non-spacing diacritics, plus
vowels with nasal hooks and acute or breve accents - ready to use. The only
"minus" is the font size - ~1.7 megabytes.
And finally, Pan-Euro versions of Windows 95+ have the character sets enough
for coding in Colorado and Buechel. More about the fonts, and how to
download them here: http://www.inext.cz/siouan/checkup.htm

Good luck!
P.S. If you don't mind, a little Q.: have you observed strong (velar)
aspiration in your dialect of Dakota (in the words like thathanka, khunshi,
chanpha)

Best wishes,
Constantine


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Sep 25 07:09:39 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:09:39 -0600
Subject: Sioux language font
In-Reply-To: <003c01c26415$38384da0$4384763e@avt1046180>
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.010939.0600.>

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Wablenica wrote:
> However these are useful links for fonts and keyboards:
> John Koontz. Siouan fonts:
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/fonts/ssfonts.htm - supports both Colorado
> and Buechel

It would be hard to improve on Constantine's advice.  I could add that the
fonts above include support for Riggs and variosu BAE schemes as well.
Some keyboarding schemes based on the Tavultesoft Keyman tool that SIL
recommends for Windows use are included, though the documentation is
stronger for the Standard Siouan font than it is for the Dakotanist
(Buechel & Riggs) or BAE fonts.

There is now a new version of Keyman from SIL (http://www.sil.org).
Keyman can be used with any font.  It can be set to convert usages like a~
to nasalized a. I'm less sure about aN, because it's been a long time
since I worked with the package.  It can be difficult to find convenient
key combinations that aren't already in use by Windows or WIndows
applications, not to mention plain old English (or Dakota).  Things like
,a for nasal a or .s for esh are a possibility.

JEK


From napsha51 at aol.com  Wed Sep 25 13:09:58 2002
From: napsha51 at aol.com (napsha51 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:09:58 -0400
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.090958.0400.>

John, I don't know where else to write, please change my address to
napshawin at hotmail.com
what is wrong with my orthography? You don't need fonts, it he owawa, lila atxaninyan Lakxota ki wo-unwapi kta cha he-un, eyash tuweni chin shin s'elecheca!
violet


From munro at ucla.edu  Wed Sep 25 14:47:56 2002
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 07:47:56 -0700
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.074756.0700.>

I'm with Violet -- who needs special fonts for Lakhota? Save them for languages with really difficult phonetics if you must!

Pam



napsha51 at aol.com wrote:

> John, I don't know where else to write, please change my address to
> napshawin at hotmail.com
> what is wrong with my orthography? You don't need fonts, it he owawa, lila atxaninyan Lakxota ki wo-unwapi kta cha he-un, eyash tuweni chin shin s'elecheca!
> violet


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Sep 25 14:47:55 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:47:55 -0500
Subject: Sioux language font
Message-ID: <WED.25.SEP.2002.094755.0500.>

Yes!  Go to John Koontz's web site and you can download
several different Siouan fonts that will allow you to
use current phonological symbols, the traditional Riggs
Sioux spelling system or several other variants.  His
URL is:  http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz

Bob Rankin


----- Original Message -----
From: Bruguier, Leonard <bruguier at usd.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:11 PM
Subject: Sioux language font


> hey hey folks: is there a font out there that i can
use to transcribe some
> of my tapes in Dakota? any help appreciated. with
respect, horse
>
> Leonard R. Bruguier
> 605.677.5945, 605.677.6525 FAX
> www.usd.edu/iais/
> "Life is good, I aint had a bad day since '68." St.
Lefty
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rankin, Robert L [mailto:rankin at ku.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:02 AM
> To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu '
> Subject: RE: Omaha athe, etc.
>
>
> >So we have (pre-)historically two different words
that come
> out as /the/ in OP.  One is the positional, 'standing
inanimate',
> (or 'plural, bundled').  The other is a cognate of
Hidatsa /rahe/,
> which means 'to say that'.  The former modifies
nouns.  The
> latter works with verbs to convey the sense that
evidently the
> verb took place.  By analogy, other positionals have
also been
> introduced into the post-verbal slot with the same
EVIDENTIAL
> meaning.  So any time we find a positional after a
verb in OP,
> the implication is that the verb 'evidently'
happened.  Is this
> a valid re-statement of what you're saying?
>
> Yep, exactly!
>
> >For /athe'/, it looks like we have two hypotheses:
>      1)  It is the 1st-person inflected form of
/the/.
>      2)  It is a separate, uninflected particle.
>
> I think I'll start by trying Catherine's excellent
suggestion of
>
>      aNzhaN' aNthe'
>
> My only caveat here has to do with the fact that the
verb 'sleep' here has a
> final nasal vowel.  Since the beginning of the
putative 'we must have slept'
> contains the same vowel, there is some possibility of
confusion on the part
> of speakers.  Maybe some verb that ends in an oral V
would improve chances.
>
> Bob
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Sep 27 18:47:38 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:47:38 -0500
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.134738.0500.>

I'm currently working with Carolyn Quintero and her
Osage lexical materials and we have a question or two.

1.  What is your judgment of the transitivity of a
sentence like "John is standing on the floor" in a
typical Siouan language?  Something like "John
floor-the anazhiN."

Does the fact that the locative a- is a part of the
verb nazhiN 'stand' render the word 'floor' the direct
object of the verb?  In English we would take 'on the
floor' to be something quite different from the direct
object, but what about anazhiN?  Is 'the floor' the DO
in Siouan or not?

2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
direct object of the verb in, for example,
a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
is it a voice marker?

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Sep 27 19:53:30 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:53:30 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <003501c26656$5ecfea20$d1b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.135330.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> I'm currently working with Carolyn Quintero and her
> Osage lexical materials and we have a question or two.
>
> 1.  What is your judgment of the transitivity of a sentence like "John
> is standing on the floor" in a typical Siouan language?  Something
> like "John floor-the anazhiN."

I think David Rood has pointed out that such constructions are somewhat
ambiguously transitive in Dakotan.  At least some locatives can add an
additional argument to a verb already transitive, though I think this
additional argument is always third person, which is highly suggestive.  A
first or second person object has to be the only one.  I do not know the
specific examples, off hand, though this may have been mentioned on the
list (check the archives).  I hope I am remembering this correctly.

It seems to me that the basic test to apply is whether the locative can
govern a first or second person object.  If it can, then the verb is
transitive.  My impression is that forms like the one you cite meet this
test of transitivity in Dhegiha.  More difficult cases would occur with
verbs already transitive.  I would suspect that such verbs would only
permit either the locative or the underlying stem to govern an object,
probably only the locative with a-.

But think about forms with instruments governed by i-.  My guess is that
in this case i- would have to be third person, and the verb might permit
an object for the basic stem.  Examples, like 'I cut you with the knife'
and so on.

Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

> 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the direct object
> of the verb in, for example, a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other,
> where atoMpe is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or is it a voice
> marker?

I'd say not.  I think it's essentially a derivational prefix, though it
does go inside the locative.  The fact that hki-k- goes inside the
locative, but (sometimes) outside an outer instrumental, is one of the
ordering conundrums in Omaha-Ponca:  a little detail that taken with
various others makes it difficult to justify an account of OP morphology
that relies on a strict position class approach to OP morphosyntax.
Basically you need some account equivalent to a series of rules that
determine the position of *hki from the form of the underlying stem.

You might want to look at the number of *hki-k- forms that have a
reflexive benefactive sense, e.g., akkikkaghe 'I made it for myself'.  I
don't think you can say something like 'I made you for myself', but I'm
not sure.  As David Rood pointed out to me once, the somewhat comparable
reflexive possessive (suus) stems are definitely transitive.  'I saw you
(my relative)' is quite possible in OP.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Sep 27 19:59:13 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:59:13 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209271334450.7999-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.135913.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
> argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
> two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
> would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
> agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
> permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

My point is that I don't think the verb can agree pronominally with the
thing lacked.  I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
don't have you, my life isn't worth living.' I expect there's a paraphrase
that avoids the issue.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Sep 27 20:27:22 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:27:22 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <003501c26656$5ecfea20$d1b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.142722.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

> I'm currently working with Carolyn Quintero and her
> Osage lexical materials and we have a question or two.
>
> 1.  What is your judgment of the transitivity of a
> sentence like "John is standing on the floor" in a
> typical Siouan language?  Something like "John
> floor-the anazhiN."
>
> Does the fact that the locative a- is a part of the
> verb nazhiN 'stand' render the word 'floor' the direct
> object of the verb?  In English we would take 'on the
> floor' to be something quite different from the direct
> object, but what about anazhiN?  Is 'the floor' the DO
> in Siouan or not?


I can tell you what happens in Lakhota, if that helps.  Verbs with
locative prefixes take direct object personal pronouns (recall from the
kazoo conference my example of amachage 'ice formed on me').  But if the
object is third person, it must be marked by a postposition in addition to
the locative prefix (Phez^i akaN achage 'ice formed on the grass').  My
immediate reaction is to treat the locative prefix as an adposition and
treat the object as oblique -- i.e. it's not the direct object of the verb,
but an argument of the affix.  The alternative would be to treat the prefix
as an applicative and argue that it has "promoted" an oblique object to
argument status.  In either case, the adposition has to be some kind of
duplication -- either the affix or the adposition is a copy/agreement of
the other -- and I am not aware of any kind of syntax that allows
different case markers depending on the person of the arguments (enlighten
me, please, if such things exist -- that would be fascinating).

>
> 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
> direct object of the verb in, for example,
> a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
> is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
> is it a voice marker?


Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

David


> Bob
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Sep 27 21:56:51 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:56:51 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209271409370.714-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.155651.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> I can tell you what happens in Lakhota, if that helps.

So, ignore my summary of the Dakota, which was off the mark!

> Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
> BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
> reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
> de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
> reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

In OP the reflexive-reciprocal is active intransitive.

JEK


From Rgraczyk at aol.com  Sat Sep 28 00:29:30 2002
From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:29:30 EDT
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.202930.EDT.>

I have been treating verbs like 'stand on' with locative prefixes as
transitive in Crow.  I guess my main reason for saying this is that the
locative prefixes are somewhat fossilized, i.e., they do not combine freely
with verb roots, but only occur with a limited set of roots, and their
semantics are not always perfectly straightforward.

Some Crow verbs with locative prefixes actually have double objects, e.g.
a'apchiaxxu 'pour on' : pour water on John.

Randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020927/2ad61565/attachment.htm>

From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu  Sat Sep 28 00:49:06 2002
From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:49:06 -0500
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.194906.0500.>

>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
>> Whether a verb with a locative can govern a nominal argument, and which
>> argument this would be functionally, or whether ditransitives can govern
>> two arguments, would also be worth considering, though I suspect they
>> would be less diagnostic.  Compare cases like dhiNge' 'to lack', which
>> agrees with the lacker using stative (object) pronominals, but still
>> permits a nominal reference to the lacked.

> My point is that I don't think the verb can agree pronominally with the
> thing lacked.  I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
> don't have you, my life isn't worth living.' I expect there's a
paraphrase
> that avoids the issue.

Would the first clause be something like:  Dhi aNdhiN'ge (egaN')...  ?

The word dhiNge' shouldn't be thought of as 'to lack', which is transitive
in English, but rather as 'to be gone' or 'to be lacking'.  You can then
have a subject which is missing with respect to me.  This is normally in
the third person, so we don't get an affixed pronominal as a visible
parameter to the verb.  So if the emphatic pronoun dhi is a free argument
here, does it need a corresponding affixed pronoun, or can it be treated
the same as any other free nominal argument?

aNska'.                 I am (colored) white.
hi ska'.                The teeth are white.
hi aNska'.              My teeth are white.  (= the teeth are white with
                                                respect to me. )

This sequence, if correct, would mean that a stative verb can take two
arguments, to one of which the quality is ascribed, and the other of
which is sort of the indirect object of that relationship.

We might conceive it differently, though, if we suppose that the
nominal argument can function adverbially as a qualifier of the verb;
i.e. hi aNska' could mean "I am white teeth-wise".  Then hi ska'
could be interpreted in either of two different ways.  But if this
were true, "ShaN'ge aNdhiN'ge" would have to mean: "I am missing
horse-wise", which doesn't seem to make much sense.  I think I favor
the first possibility.

Interesting issue...

Rory


From munro at ucla.edu  Sat Sep 28 03:12:52 2002
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:12:52 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.201252.0700.>

Speaking as a lurker who knows quite a bit about Siouan languages and
this typology, my answers would be

1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
DO).

2. No, it is absolutely not a DO.
I would not call it a voice marker either as I understand the term. For
the comparable morpheme in Lakhota and other languages like this I know
of, I would consider it essentially a detransitivizer. But maybe there
are subtleties in Osage I'm not familiar with.

Pam


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Sat Sep 28 04:02:14 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:02:14 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209271409370.714-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.210214.0700.>

David Rood wrote:

> In either case, the adposition has to be some kind of
> duplication -- either the affix or the adposition is a copy/agreement of
> the other -- and I am not aware of any kind of syntax that allows
> different case markers depending on the person of the arguments (enlighten
> me, please, if such things exist -- that would be fascinating).

Actually, I think such a thing is possible. If I recall correctly, 3rd
person is treated quite differently from local persons in Athabaskan
languages, especially the northern ones. (If you're truly interested, check
out what Sharon Hargus, Keren Rice and Leslie Saxon have to say on the
issue. They all differ somewhat, but are talking about the same issue - the
difference in case marking between local and non-local persons).

There are certainly case splits that run across person lines (see Jelinek,
1985 on Nisgha, for example).

> >
> > 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
> > direct object of the verb in, for example,
> > a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
> > is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> > argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
> > is it a voice marker?
>
>
> Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
> BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
> reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
> de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
> reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

I really need to re-read that paper. I'm having nothing by trouble figuring
out reflexives in Assiniboine. They don't work quite the same way as in
Lakhota, and it's confusing me greatly.

Shannon


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Sat Sep 28 04:05:51 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:05:51 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <3D951E33.F48339AE@ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.210551.0700.>

This is a very interesting conversation, and I've been after this type of
evidence myself lately. I'm still fighting with the question of pronominal
arguments and such. This kind of thing might give me the edge I need. :)

 Pamela Munro
> Sent: September 27, 2002 8:13 PM
>
> Speaking as a lurker who knows quite a bit about Siouan languages and
> this typology, my answers would be
>
> 1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
> DO).

Ok. But why? :) Why not an oblique? I'm really interested in this one. I
haven't taken sides yet (I'm such a fence-sitter, I have post marks
permanently indenting my backside), so I'd really like to see lots of
thoughts on this. :)

Shannon


From munro at ucla.edu  Sat Sep 28 04:24:04 2002
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:24:04 -0700
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
Message-ID: <FRI.27.SEP.2002.212404.0700.>

Re Shannon's question, this is definitional for me (thus perhaps a
theoretical position) --

If the argument in question is not marked with a postposition, it is a
"direct argument", i.e. either a subject (it's not that), or an object.
I called it a "direct object" because it's the only object. The case
where there is another agreeing object (not the one Bob asked about) is
interesting, of course.

To me, the terms "direct" and "indirect" for objects don't seem
particularly appropriate for this type of language, because there is a
mis-match. Often, in a language like this, the indirect (recipient)
object of a verb like 'give' is the one that will agree ( if it's one of
Shannon's "local persons"). As John pointed out, there may be a verb
with the locative applicative prefix which takes a normal (patient)
direct object that can agree. So we have agreeing indirect objects
lining up with agreeing patient objects vs. non-agreeing patients and
locatives -- ouch! This suggests that what is relevant is some kind of
person hierarchy or maybe a hierarchy of salience or something, rather
than straightforward grammatical relations. (But in my nihilistic vein
I'd prefer to think it's pretty much lexical, though with strong
semantic tendencies....) (This is assuming pretty much that only one
non-subject argument can agree, which is not perhaps strictly always
true.)

Thus I was not fully informative in saying that I thought the locative
argument in Bob's original sentence was (probably) a DO. (I don't know
Osage, so this is really all speculation. But that's my gut feeling.)

So these locatives might be "semantic obliques", but they aren't
"formal" obliques, at least for me.

Pam


From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Sep 28 14:55:06 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:55:06 -0500
Subject: transitivity, locative prefixes, etc.
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.095506.0500.>

All,

Many thanks indeed for all the really fascinating
input.  I sort of figured that this might be like
squirting the garden hose at the hornet's nest.
Obviously a lot depends on what model of grammar one
tends to "think in".  It also depends on whether we
take a semantic or a purely morpho-syntactic point of
view.

> To me, the terms "direct" and "indirect" for objects
don't seem
> particularly appropriate for this type of language,
because there is a
> mis-match. Often, in a language like this, the
indirect (recipient)
> object of a verb like 'give' is the one that will
agree ( if it's one of
> Shannon's "local persons").

I've always sort of liked Matt Dryer's notion of
"primary object" and "secondary object".

> Thus I was not fully informative in saying that I
thought the locative
> argument in Bob's original sentence was (probably) a
DO. (I don't know
> Osage, so this is really all speculation. But that's
my gut feeling.)

Well, Osage works generally very much like Dakota.  I
think we can say that of nearly all Mississippi Valley
Siouan languages (I haven't looked at Winnebago).
Pam's "gut feeling" was mine too, and that's what I
told Carolyn.  Like Randy, I noted that very many
locative prefixes are part of their verbs and range
from totally transparent to totally opaque in
analyzability (I haven't had my coffee this a.m. so I
don't know if that's spelled right.).

> So these locatives might be "semantic obliques", but
they aren't
> "formal" obliques, at least for me.

I have a feeling that talking about "semantic obliques"
(or other semantic analyses) is just a fancy way of
saying "we're translating this sentence into English
and then analyzing the English." . . . something that
used to get Mary Haas's hackles up.  I guess, like Pam,
I'm trying to think of things in morphosyntactic terms
taking into consideration "the genius of the Siouan
languages", i.e., the fact that they have real
postpositions that allow for oblique arguments,
ordinary PP's, BUT they also have these three locative
prefixes that are "different" from postpositions.  Why?
What does this difference imply grammatically?  Etc.
That's what you guys are helping so much with here.
Thanks again for your comments, feelings and analyses.
All are very valuable to us.  I'd be happy to hear more
along the same lines.

Best,

Bob


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Sat Sep 28 17:32:55 2002
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:32:55 -0500
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <3D951E33.F48339AE@ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.123255.0500.>

-------------------
> I would not call it a voice marker either as I understand the term.
For
> the comparable morpheme in Lakhota and other languages like this I
know
> of, I would consider it essentially a detransitivizer.

I'm curious about the question of a middle voice.  I played around
with the idea a while back to see if it might explain the difference
between 1st sg "waki" and "we" in verbs with "ki" - it seemed to come
close, but in the end, the argument was a bit squishy because there
were several counterexamples to the class I was attempting to
construct.  VanValin (1977) called these "a special form of transitive
verbs which overtly indicates that the Actor possesses the
Patient..analobous to the "middle Voice forms in some Indo-Europesan
languages (47-8), and on p. 58 says "there is another morpheme "ki"
which marks the "middle voice", i.e. the possession of the Patient by
the Actor. Thus "ki-" marks two different kinds of possession in
addition to its semantic roles."

Has anyone else formally pursued this idea?

Lind


From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Sat Sep 28 17:47:28 2002
From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:47:28 -0700
Subject: transitivity, locative prefixes, etc.
In-Reply-To: <003101c266ff$0be759c0$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.104728.0700.>

Dear All,

I'm inclined to agree with Pam and Bob and others of you. I've always
thought of these prefixes (a-, I-, etc.) as prototypical applicatives,
that is, they derive a new verb stem whose added core argument is a
location, an instrument, etc.

As many of you know, applicatives can have two kinds of grammatical
effects when applied to verb stems that are already transitive. In some
languages, the added argument (location, etc.) replaces the original
second argument (usually a semantic patient), which then is not mentioned
at all or is grammatically oblique. In other languages, applicatives add
an argument, deriving a ditransitive stem from a previously transitive
one. And yet other languages have some of each.

Since the applicative morphology is derivational, and creates new lexical
items, the new stems can take on a life of their own and develop in
idiosyncratic ways, sometimes with a shift in transitivity. So what might
have started life as a derived transitive could be reinterpreted as an
intransitive, etc.

Actually, Athabaskan languages show very much the same kind of situation,
as many of you know. Most have a large inventory of separate
'postpositions', which carry pronominal prefixes just like verbs do:

	me-for   you-cook

etc.
Over time, some combinations of postposition and following inflected verb
have come to be recognized as lexicalized expressions, and the word
boundary has broken down, so that in those cases, the former postposition,
preceded by its pronominal prefix, has become the initial element of the
verb word. In some cases both forms persist in the language: independent
postpositions (with pronominal prefixes) and cognate applicative verbal
prefixes (with pronominal prefixes), typically with the verbal prefixes
slightly more eroded in form, as would be expected. Some of the group that
were undoubtedly originally postpositions now survive only as applicative
prefixes on verbs; their postpositional sources have dropped out of the
language.

In some cases, speakers still have choices between a postposition followed
by a verb, and an applicative verb. As might be expected, the independent
postposition in these cases, puts separate attention on the postposition,
while the applicative verb is interpreted more as a single lexical unit,
often with more idiomatic meaning. Of course applicative constructions
make that additional argument a core argument, so it is more likely to
happen to animate arguments, especially first and second persons.

I tend to feel the same way as Pam: a major formal sign of the difference
between core and oblique status is whether pronominal reference is in
the verb or not. Of course with Siouan third persons, there is less
visible difference, with zero third persons.


Marianne


On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:

>
> All,
>
> Many thanks indeed for all the really fascinating
> input.  I sort of figured that this might be like
> squirting the garden hose at the hornet's nest.
> Obviously a lot depends on what model of grammar one
> tends to "think in".  It also depends on whether we
> take a semantic or a purely morpho-syntactic point of
> view.
>
> > To me, the terms "direct" and "indirect" for objects
> don't seem
> > particularly appropriate for this type of language,
> because there is a
> > mis-match. Often, in a language like this, the
> indirect (recipient)
> > object of a verb like 'give' is the one that will
> agree ( if it's one of
> > Shannon's "local persons").
>
> I've always sort of liked Matt Dryer's notion of
> "primary object" and "secondary object".
>
> > Thus I was not fully informative in saying that I
> thought the locative
> > argument in Bob's original sentence was (probably) a
> DO. (I don't know
> > Osage, so this is really all speculation. But that's
> my gut feeling.)
>
> Well, Osage works generally very much like Dakota.  I
> think we can say that of nearly all Mississippi Valley
> Siouan languages (I haven't looked at Winnebago).
> Pam's "gut feeling" was mine too, and that's what I
> told Carolyn.  Like Randy, I noted that very many
> locative prefixes are part of their verbs and range
> from totally transparent to totally opaque in
> analyzability (I haven't had my coffee this a.m. so I
> don't know if that's spelled right.).
>
> > So these locatives might be "semantic obliques", but
> they aren't
> > "formal" obliques, at least for me.
>
> I have a feeling that talking about "semantic obliques"
> (or other semantic analyses) is just a fancy way of
> saying "we're translating this sentence into English
> and then analyzing the English." . . . something that
> used to get Mary Haas's hackles up.  I guess, like Pam,
> I'm trying to think of things in morphosyntactic terms
> taking into consideration "the genius of the Siouan
> languages", i.e., the fact that they have real
> postpositions that allow for oblique arguments,
> ordinary PP's, BUT they also have these three locative
> prefixes that are "different" from postpositions.  Why?
> What does this difference imply grammatically?  Etc.
> That's what you guys are helping so much with here.
> Thanks again for your comments, feelings and analyses.
> All are very valuable to us.  I'd be happy to hear more
> along the same lines.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 04:58:34 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:58:34 -0600
Subject: Sioux language font (fwd)
Message-ID: <SAT.28.SEP.2002.225834.0600.>

I think this might have been meant for the list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:36:37 -0500
From: Timothy Dunnigan <dunni001 at umn.edu>
To: Leonard Bruguier <bruguier at usd.edu>
Cc: John.Koontz at COLORADO.EDU, wablenica at mail.ru
Subject: Re: Sioux language font

Dear Leonard,

Regarding your inquiry about the availability of a Dakota font, the Dakota
Language Program in the Department of American Indian Studies (AIS) at the
University of Minnesota is using a version of a font developed by Alan
Ominsky for the Dakota Language Committee chaired by Dr. Christian
Matonunpa, a Professor of American Indian and Dakota Studies at Southwest
State University, Minnesota.  Dr. Matonunpa and his daughter Dr. Angela
Wilson (Professor of History at Arizona State University) decided to mark
unaspirated p, t, c, k with a dot positioned below the letter, while
leaving their aspirated counterparts unmarked.  A dot is positioned over
the letter to represent alveopalatal s and z and velar h and g.  The Riggs
convention of representing vowel nasalization with an angma (velar n) is
maintained.  The marking of primary and secondary stress on vowels is also
an option.  The typing macros are ALT+Cntl+(letter) for small case.  The
Shift+..., of course, capitalizes.  The font permits both bolding and
italicizing.

AIS has made aspiration the marked case.  While the typing macros are
simple for Mac applications, the AIS version requires the use of the
numerical key pad for PC applications.  I could try to send you a
simplified PC version (use of the numeric keys unnecessary) as an email
attachment, if your interested.

Tim Dunnigan


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 06:04:26 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:04:26 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <OF7F6CD327.088B4F62-ON86256C41.00838588@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.000426.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> > I don't know how you would say something like 'Since I
> > don't have you, my life isn't worth living.'

> Would the first clause be something like:  Dhi aNdhiN'ge (egaN')...  ?

No idea, really, though I think not, as I've never run into any verbs with
multiple patient inflection, and the closest thing to an independent
pronominal without pronominal agreement I can think of is aNgutta as the
alienable possessive (cf. aNgu 'us' as independent inclusive).  But all of
the alienable forms tend to look like that in OP, and this is kind of off
topic, so ...

> The word dhiNge' shouldn't be thought of as 'to lack', which is
> transitive in English, but rather as 'to be gone' or 'to be lacking'.
> You can then have a subject which is missing with respect to me.
> This is normally in the third person, so we don't get an affixed
> pronominal as a visible parameter to the verb.  So if the emphatic
> pronoun dhi is a free argument here, does it need a corresponding
> affixed pronoun, or can it be treated the same as any other free
> nominal argument?

I like to gloss verbs with English verbs that have similar argument
structures, too, but this is an area in which it gets a bit difficult at
times.  I think the morphological argument with dhiNge is always in
patient form, and always signifies the person experiencing the lack.  The
person/thing lacked has to be a third person reference (I'm not sure it
can be a person), and coincidentally the verb, of course, doesn't agree
with it.

I'll suggest somewhat uncertainly that this is true across at least
Mississippi Valley Siouan, hoping to hear some confirmations or
contradictions.

I think there are several other verbs like this in Dhegiha languages, and
also in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages, and that we tend to
overlook them in classifying Siouan verbs.

The general syntax is

NP arg-verb

where

NP is a nominal (always third person)
arg is a patient (or dative-patient) prefix on the verb

arg experiences something involving NP

I expect that it must be possible to echo arg with an independent
pronominal for focus purposes, as usual, though I don't have any specific
examples.

Other verbs like this may be 'to lose/drop' and 'to have one's own die'
(with dative patient).  However, there are others involving bodily
sensations and states.  We've discussed them before as dative-subject
verbs.  The NP is often incorporated, leading to infixing verb stems.

> aNska'.                 I am (colored) white.
> hi ska'.                The teeth are white.
> hi aNska'.              My teeth are white.  (= the teeth are white with
>                                                 respect to me. )
>
> This sequence, if correct, would mean that a stative verb can take two
> arguments, to one of which the quality is ascribed, and the other of
> which is sort of the indirect object of that relationship.

One could interpret this as something different, involving possessor
raising, and it is different to the extent that dhiNge plainly always
involves two arguments, while ska doesn't.  I don't think it is really
possible to use dhiNge in cases like 'you were missing'.

However, I think examples like this behavior of ska are really comparable,
anyway.

There's a small difficulty is knowing whether hi ska is 'his teeth are
white' or, getting fancy 'he experiences white teeth'.  But it doesn't
strike me as particularly problematic if this middle case - middle in the
list above, I mean! - is either ambiguous or an alternate argument
structure.  Clearly there are some cases that parallel dhiNge in argument
structure.  We should be used to verbs that have multiple argument
structures, some intransitive and some transitive, from English, e.g.,
'roll' in 'it rolls' and 'I roll it', or 'eat' in 'I ate' and 'I ate it',
or even 'it eats like chicken'.  Or 'feel (OK)' with 'it feels OK (to me)'
and 'I feel OK', where the last two cases involve intransitive structures
with different kinds of argument.

The thing to notice, though, is that in the two argument cases in OP, the
verb marks the experiencer and uses the same pronominal series it uses
when it's marking the subject in one-argument cases.  I've switched to
saying one-argument and two-argument, because it's clear that there are
difficulties in calling the two-argument cases transitive in the Siouan
context.  I don't want to get hung up on terminology.  I think people who
agreed on the facts of these forms might disagree on whether to call them
transitive, both for theoretical reasons and because these cases are
somewhat intermediate.

This is essentially the point Rory goes on to make.

> We might conceive it differently, though, if we suppose that the
> nominal argument can function adverbially as a qualifier of the verb;
> i.e. hi aNska' could mean "I am white teeth-wise".  Then hi ska'
> could be interpreted in either of two different ways.  But if this
> were true, "ShaN'ge aNdhiN'ge" would have to mean: "I am missing
> horse-wise", which doesn't seem to make much sense.  I think I favor
> the first possibility.
>
> Interesting issue...

Yep!


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 08:17:11 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:17:11 -0600
Subject: transitivity,
 locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMOENDCLAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.021711.0600.>

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> > 1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
> > DO).
>
> Ok. But why? :) Why not an oblique? I'm really interested in this one. I
> haven't taken sides yet (I'm such a fence-sitter, I have post marks
> permanently indenting my backside), so I'd really like to see lots of
> thoughts on this. :)

My argument is pretty much along Pam Munro's lines (and others), to wit,
the argument of the locative prefix is the direct object of the
locative-prefixed verb if the verb agrees with the "semantic locative"
(hereafter the locus) but uses regular patient agreement forms to do so.
As Bob points out, the concept of "semantic locative" is something of a
slippery slope, but, in the absence of any universally recognized
metalanguage we're sort of stuck with that slippery slope, I think.
Still, given that Siouan languages do have locative postpositions I think
a hypothetical Osage speaker, suitably inclined, could use Osage itself as
a metalanguage in this case.  The results might be somewhat ungrammatical,
but, then, I'm OK with examples like 'I command it on you' for a'wigas^i
(< a'gas^i 'to command').

Like Bob I like the terms primary and secondary object.  Omaha-Ponca, and
also, I suppose, Osage, permits secondary objects as NPs, but it only
agrees with primary objects.  I'd say a verb like dhiNge agrees with the
experiencer as primary object and that the thing lacked is a secondary
object.  Or, as some would say, an oblique.

In case it helps, some Omaha-Ponca examples follow.  Unfortunately, I
don't have any great examples with a'ttaN 'to tread on'.

JOD 1890:264.5
ttaha'wagdhe iNdhattaN         the  ha
shield       you tread on mine EVID ASSERT

(Spoken by Big (Snapping?) Turtle, referring to stepping on his shell.)

(a) iN-    dha- ttaN
on  me-DAT you  tread

Unfortunately, the morphological logic of OP verbs is such that a-aN on-me
becomes aN only, and the dative is derived from that by vowel shift as iN.

Incidentally, this is one of those cases where only the "derived by vowel
shift" explanation is the only option, as opposed to explaining iN < aN +
gi by some sort of elision of g and fusion of aN and i, because, if you'll
notice, the gi dative prefix ought to follow dha, but has somehow managed
to combine with aN through dha without affecting dha at all.

So, if you know OP morphology this is a convincing case of "agreeing with
the locus using verb morphology", but if you don't and are skeptical, you
might think I'm trying to pull a fast one here.  A case of "I tread on
you" would be much more convincing, were one to hand.  It would be
a'-wi-ttaN, where wi is comparable to c^hi.

JOD 1890:214.14-15

si=  the siNde=ge  wa'ttaN=        bi=    kki
foot the tails the he trod on them REPORT when
(he trod on the tails with his foot)

wa-  a-  ttaN
them on tread

where wa- is the Dhegiha vicar for wic^ha- - or vice versa.

Not as convincing, perhaps, because the pronominal in this case precedes
the a and one might want to argue that it was somehow an argument of the
a, but not the ttaN.

Other, better examples with other stems:

a'-wi-gdhiN 'I sit on you'   JOD 1890:99.13

a'-wi-b-dhaskabe 'I stick to you'  JOD 1890:211.12

a'-wi-gippanaN 'I gaze on you (my relation)'  JOD 1890:230.12

a'-wi-naNge 'I run on (or over) you'  JOD 1890:566.8

a'-wi-gaz^ade 'I step over you'  JOD 1890:568.

a'-wi-naN?aN 'I hear from you'  JOD 1890:717.12

a'-wi-kki=b-dha 'I attack you' (a...kki=dha)  JOD 1890:23.18

a'-wi-gaz^i 'I command you'  JOD 1890:198.7

In all of these cases the primary object is the locus.

I haven't found any examples of a- transitives that seem to agree with
something other than the locus, but consider i'-.  ote that i'- is
sometimes plainly instrumental (governing an argument of means), and in
other cases it is more generally locative.


* Cases where i- governs a secondary object, not the primary object.

waxiN'ha i'-wi-maghe 'letter I ask you (about)'  JOD 1890:658.2

waxiN'ha i'-wi-kkikka 'letter I ask as a favor of you'  JOD 1890:675.5

i'-wi-p-aghe 'I make for you by means of (it)'  JOD 1890:716.2

ga=khe i'-wi-gaxdhi 'that I will slay you with'  JOD 1890:394.3
(I will kill you with that)


* Cases where i- governs the primary object.

i'-wi-hi=b-dha 'I bathe by means of you'  JOD 1890:234.4
(to stones to heat sweat lodge)


* Cases where i- does not seem to be clearly instrumental or even
locative, but the verb stem as a whole is transitive.  Probably i- is
originally locative in some way.

i'-wi-t?a=b=dha 'I hate you'  JOD 1890:669.3

i'-wi-iNga 'I ignored you'  JOD 1891:101.7

ukki'tte i'-wi-ppahaN 'nation(s) I know you'  JOD 1890:426.8

i'-wi-kkiz^az^e 'I threaten to attack you' JOD 1890:582.10 (Hmm.  I wonder
if this provides a root for waz^a'z^e 'Osage'? I'd always suspected
iz^a'z^e 'name', though maybe 'to name each other' is the basis of 'to
threaten to attack'.)

i'-wi-kkaN=i 'I contend with you(pl)'  JOD 1890:166.3


* Cases where whether i- governs the object depends on whether you see the
case as raising:

siNde=khe naNbe'=the i'-wi-kkaNttaN '(your) tail (my hand) I tie
you with'
JOD 1890:96.4-5
(I will tie your tail with my hands.)

dha-gha'ge i'-wi-kkuhe 'you cry I fear it for you'  JOD 1890:372.4
(I fear that you cry)

ppaN'kka=tta ne i'-wi-kkuhe 'Poncas-to you go I fear for you'  JOD
1890:651.6
(I fear that you will go to the Poncas)

wa-dh-xpadhiN i'-wi-kkuhe 'you are poor I fear it for you'  JOD 1891:97.3
(I fear that you are in want)

s^kaN maN-h-niN=ge bdhuga=xti i'-wi-b-dhigdhaN '(in) all your affairs I
rule over you'  JOD 1890:328.5-6


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 08:28:28 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:28:28 -0600
Subject: Sioux language font (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209282257230.1075-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.022828.0600.>

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Tim Dunnigan wrote:
> Dr. Matonunpa and his daughter Dr. Angela Wilson (Professor of History
> at Arizona State University) decided to mark unaspirated p, t, c, k
> with a dot positioned below the letter, while leaving their aspirated
> counterparts unmarked.

This tradition is employed in Buechel (with over dots).  It's essentially
the practice of Dorsey (under x's) and subsequently of LaFlesche (under
dots), though the (voiceless) unaspirated series they apply it to is also
tense/long and corresponds largely with Dakotan aspirates.

Interestingly, I have the impression that, with the possible exception
that LaFlesche may have been following Dorsey, these are all more or less
independent innovations.

Dotting unaspirated stops is a fairly economical approach in Dakotan,
where aspirates are common.  In Dakotan you could also use bdjg for
unaspirated stops, though that would interfere with using g as gh (voiced
velar fricative) and I suspect it would present practical problems due to
the clash with English usage, which is probably why ph/th/ch/kh bother
people, too.  In Omaha-Ponca it's easier to leave the tense stops unmarked
and mark the rare true aspirates specially, and this is the approach
adopted in the Macy Schools Omaha Orthography and the new Ponca
orthography, too.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Sep 29 15:07:32 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:07:32 -0500
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.100732.0500.>

Dear All,

My actual linguistic message is at the bottom of this
mess.  I just thought you might be entertained by the
literal-mindedness of the Tin Idiot at Colorado.  :-)
Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <listproc at lists.colorado.edu>
To: <rankin at KU.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,


>
> Dear user, every time you send email to list SIOUAN
the system analyzes
> the first line of your message in order to catch
misdirected requests.
> It appears that the first line in your message may
have been such a request:
>
> RUN INTO
>
> The first word, "RUN", matches one of ListProc's
command words, and as
> a result your mail was not distributed to the list.
If your intent was to send
> a request please resend it to the command processor
listproc at lists.Colorado.EDU (not
siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU).
>
> If your intent was to post a message to this list
please rephrase the first
> line of your message so that it does not look like a
request and resubmit it
> to siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU, and please accept our
apologies for the inconvenience.
>
> If you need further assistance please contact the
owner(s) john.koontz at colorado.edu .
>
> Your entire message is copied below.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
> >From rankin at ku.edu Sun Sep 29 08:59:18 2002
> Received: from lark.cc.ku.edu (root at lark.cc.ku.edu
[129.237.34.2])
> by hooch.Colorado.EDU
(8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/standard) with ESMTP id
g8TExHp11408
> for <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>; Sun, 29 Sep 2002
08:59:18 -0600 (MDT)
> Received: from robertra by lark.cc.ku.edu
(8.8.8/1.1.8.2/12Jan95-0207PM)
> id JAA0000026738; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:59:16 -0500
(CDT)
> Message-ID: <002a01c267c8$a8b43e20$e2b5ed81 at robertra>
> From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>
> To: "Siouan list" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> References:
<Pine.GSO.4.40.0209282326440.1075-100000 at spot.colorado.
edu>
> Subject: Re: transitivity, etc,
> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:58:21 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE
V5.00.2615.200
>
> > No idea, really, though I think not, as I've never
> run into any verbs with multiple patient inflection,
.
> . .
>
> You must mean something other than the experiencer
> "transitives" like 'resemble', 'be proud of', 'be
> afraid of', and the like -- of which there are quite
a
> number.
>
> I've been collecting them, and, as you know, they
> require a stative subject and stative object in
various
> of the languages.  The subject is inevitably an
> experiencer.  In English we usually (but not always)
> translate the object using a preposition.  The
> inventory differs quite considerably from language to
> language.  One of these days I'll have enough data
for
> a real paper on the subject, but this is a whole new
> aspect to the transitivity questions we have been
> discussing the past couple of days.  John makes a
> legitimate point in questioning the "transitivity" of
> these sorts of verbs.  For those of you who were at
the
> Regina Siouan Conference and have the handout of
Siouan
> statives I did, there is a partial inventory.  I'm
> doing an "improved" version of the stative paper at
> SSILA in Jan.
>
> Bob
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Sep 29 20:30:04 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:30:04 -0600
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <004001c267c9$f2f7aac0$e2b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.143004.0600.>

Rankin responding to Koontz:
> > > No idea, really, though I think not, as I've never
> > run into any verbs with multiple patient inflection,
> >
> > You must mean something other than the experiencer
> > "transitives" like 'resemble', 'be proud of', 'be
> > afraid of', and the like -- of which there are quite a
> > number

These particular xamples are Dakotan examples, though, right? And in
Dakotan these do inflect doubly, with a possibility of two pronominal
prefixes.

> I've been collecting them, and, as you know, they require a stative
> subject and stative object in various of the languages.  The subject
> is inevitably an experiencer.

I think I might have been obscure/  I definitely don't mean that I haven't
encountered this pattern - in fact it's what we've been talking about, in
part.  I just mean I don't recollect any examples where both arguments are
coded with pronominal prefixes.  One argument is always third person and
so either zero-coded (so to speak) or unencoded.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Sep 29 23:15:50 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:15:50 -0500
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.181550.0500.>

I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
does across Siouan.

If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
"stative" set.  If you're willing to set aside the
notion that all languages have a use for the notion
"subject", then you can generally deal with this set of
verbs by pointing out that there is a formal
distinction in Siouan between agents and experiencers.
This isn't a new argument.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: Siouan List <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity,
etc,


> Rankin responding to Koontz:
> > > > No idea, really, though I think not, as I've
never
> > > run into any verbs with multiple patient
inflection,
> > >
> > > You must mean something other than the
experiencer
> > > "transitives" like 'resemble', 'be proud of', 'be
> > > afraid of', and the like -- of which there are
quite a
> > > number
>
> These particular xamples are Dakotan examples,
though, right? And in
> Dakotan these do inflect doubly, with a possibility
of two pronominal
> prefixes.
>
> > I've been collecting them, and, as you know, they
require a stative
> > subject and stative object in various of the
languages.  The subject
> > is inevitably an experiencer.
>
> I think I might have been obscure/  I definitely
don't mean that I haven't
> encountered this pattern - in fact it's what we've
been talking about, in
> part.  I just mean I don't recollect any examples
where both arguments are
> coded with pronominal prefixes.  One argument is
always third person and
> so either zero-coded (so to speak) or unencoded.
>
> JEK
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Sep 29 23:24:12 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:24:12 -0500
Subject: Job vacancy.
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.182412.0500.>

The University of Kansas is recruiting for a
tenure-track phonologist for its Linguistics
Department.  I do not have the description with all the
usual legalese at hand, so those who might be
interested should check Linguist List where the
official description will (or has already) appear(ed).
A Ph.D. in Linguistics is required.  We already have
someone who does phonetics exclusively, so our hire
will have to have strong research interests in "real"
phonology (emphasis mine -- RLR).

Bob Rankin


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 03:55:42 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:55:42 -0700
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <002901c2680e$291a1040$c0b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.205542.0700.>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
>
>
> I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> does across Siouan.
>
> If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> "stative" set.

I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a 'subject',
a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the either
the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering difference
with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.

Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they work,
because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from many of
the Lakhota ones.

Shannon
(I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this works, it
requires further study'. <grin>)


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Sep 30 04:27:55 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:27:55 -0600
Subject: 'to lack' and Subject
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.222755.0600.>

I've noticed these constructions in OP, in all of which the aN Pat1
encoded first person of dhiNge' 'to lack' is paired with Agt1 agreement in
an auxiliary.  This at least demonstrates the Agt and Pat agreement can be
in concord, and also tends to suggest that the experiencer patient of
dhiNge' is the subject, since these auxililaries would concord with the
subject in other kinds of sentences, whether that subject was encoded as
agent (in transitive and active verbs) or (in stative verbs) as patient.
(It seems to me that subject is a primarily a syntactic notion, which is
not marked as such in Omaha-Ponca morphology.)

JOD 1890:261.13

mikka'he aNdhiN'ge     miNkhe dhaNs^ti
comb     I have lacked I PROG heretofore

I was without a comb.


JOD 1890:495.2

nie' aNdhiN'ge=xti  anaN'z^iN
pain I lack    very I stand

I have no pain at all.


JOD 1890:522.6

wadhi'ttaN ui'kkaN     aNdhiN'ge=xti= maN
work       t help him  I lack    very I AUX

I have no work to help him.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Sep 30 05:10:06 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:10:06 -0600
Subject: Verbs with Multiple Stative Concords
In-Reply-To: <002901c2680e$291a1040$c0b5ed81@robertra>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.231006.0600.>

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> does across Siouan.

I believe there are no examples of such verbs in the Dorsey Omaha-Ponca
texts, and, though I tried hard, within my skills at the time anyway, to
elicit comparable forms in OP during fieldwork, I was unable.
This is all negative evidence, but I'm inclined to think that Omaha-Ponca
just does it differently here.

That said, Carolyn Quintero reports two cases of double statives in Osage.

wawebraN=pe 'we're (wa) tired of them (wa)' < ibraN 'be tired of'

aN-dhi'-oxta 'you love me'
< oxta 'to cherish'

However

wi'-oxta=i 'I love you'

follows the regular transitive paradigm, and the inclusive forms are

aN'oxta=pe 'we love him'
wao'xta=pe 'they like us'

which follow the regular transitive paradigm.

The closest I got to this pattern was

wi'=s^ti e'=wi-kkic^haNha
I   too  I'm as tall as you are

Note the reciprocal -kki-.  I got also

e'=s^ti e=aN'-kkic^haNha    'he's as tall as I am'
e'=s^ti dhi e'=dhi-thaNha  'he's as tall as you are' (no reciprocal)

For whatever reason, I didn't elicit the important form,

???? 'you're as tall as I am'

I think the problem was that my consultant wanted to revert to the same
form as 'I'm as tall as you are'.

I tried to fix this by doing 'bigger than' and got into problems with
a not unexpected lack of comparative forms, social issues as to the
appropriateness of making invidious comparisons, etc.

I also had

e'=dhi-dhaNska   b-dhiN    'I'm as big as you are'
you're that size I am

So I even wonder about e'=wi-kkic^haNha.

OP 'tired of' is at least an experiencer verb:

JOD 1891:61.3

wadhi'ttaN=the aNwaN'z^edha  he'ga=m=az^i
work           I am tired of little I not
I am not a little tired of the work.

The verb is aN Pat1 with u...z^edha.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Sep 30 05:28:40 2002
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:28:40 -0600
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <000501c26835$403efb60$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <SUN.29.SEP.2002.232840.0600.>

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a
> 'subject', a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance
> that the either the subject or object of these verbs is different in
> some way? A dative perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there
> some ordering difference with these? I have a set that is completely
> incomprehensible to me.

Rood & Taylor discuss some aspects of this in the draft version of their
Lakhota Sketch, but I couldn't locate the section in the published version
in HBNAI 17.

In OP there seems to be a constraint against having two patient
pronominals, with the experiencer taking precedence over the theme.  If
an experiencer is among the arguments, only it can be personal.  In
Dakotan there were at least some stems that allowed both arguments to be
pronominals, but the second person was always first (outer), as I recall
it.

Whatever principles or diagnostics enable you to select as subject the
agent if present, and the patient if not, will probably support the
experiencer as subject, too.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 12:28:59 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:28:59 -0600
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <000501c26835$403efb60$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.062859.0600.>

It's 6 am and I'm home without my books, but Shannon, you should know that
there has been some change in Lakhota in the last 60 years w/r/t these
forms (be proud of, etc.). When Boas and Deloria discuss them, they say
that only the sequence ni-ma is used (check out the facts about order --
the only thing I'm sure of is that they assert that only one combination
works).  However, some recent elicitation work has turned up ni-ma for
'you me' and ma-ni for 'I-you' for today's speakers (70-80 year olds).
Again, I need to check my notes to verify that the glosses are right --
all I remember now is that the order of affixes contrasted.  That may be
interference from English, but it may be a clue that the concept of
"subject" is lurking there somewhere.

David


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

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> >
> >
> > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > does across Siouan.
> >
> > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > "stative" set.
>
> I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a 'subject',
> a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the either
> the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering difference
> with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
>
> Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they work,
> because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from many of
> the Lakhota ones.
>
> Shannon
> (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this works, it
> requires further study'. <grin>)
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Sep 30 14:24:01 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:24:01 -0500
Subject: 'to lack' and Subject
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.092401.0500.>

Yes, these are very nice examples as they show
unequivocally that /dhiNge/ is NOT a 3rd person,
impersonal verb with a dative or patient-object.  That
is, /dhiNge/ cannot really be properly translated as
'lack' and /aN-dhiNge/ does not mean 'it is lacking to
me'.  John's right, I think; these serial VPs show that
/aN-/ here is an experiencer, not a dative, and, for
those of you who believe in the universality of
'subject' -- /aN-/ is a subject.

bob

> I've noticed these constructions in OP, in all of
which the aN Pat1
> encoded first person of dhiNge' 'to lack' is paired
with Agt1 agreement in
> an auxiliary.  This at least demonstrates the Agt and
Pat agreement can be
> in concord, and also tends to suggest that the
experiencer patient of
> dhiNge' is the subject, since these auxililaries
would concord with the
> subject in other kinds of sentences, whether that
subject was encoded as
> agent (in transitive and active verbs) or (in stative
verbs) as patient.
> (It seems to me that subject is a primarily a
syntactic notion, which is
> not marked as such in Omaha-Ponca morphology.)
>
> JOD 1890:261.13
>
> mikka'he aNdhiN'ge     miNkhe dhaNs^ti
> comb     I have lacked I PROG heretofore
>
> I was without a comb.
>
>
> JOD 1890:495.2
>
> nie' aNdhiN'ge=xti  anaN'z^iN
> pain I lack    very I stand
>
> I have no pain at all.
>
>
> JOD 1890:522.6
>
> wadhi'ttaN ui'kkaN     aNdhiN'ge=xti= maN
> work       t help him  I lack    very I AUX
>
> I have no work to help him.
>
>
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Sep 30 14:36:19 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:36:19 -0500
Subject: Verbs with Multiple Stative Concords
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.093619.0500.>

More nice examples.  While I haven't found as many of
these "double statives" as I'd like, I think there are
a few more such.  I guess I'm actually going to have to
dredge up my data.  Randy may have had some cases in
Crow, too.  He sent me a number of forms corresponding
to my list of "experiencer verbs", but I can't recall
the details.

One important and interesting note illustrated here in
Carolyn's data.  When you expect the sequence /aN+dhi/
signaling 'I acting upon you' with both pronominals
stative, the portmanteau, /wi-/ overrides in all the
Dhegiha data I have (which isn't much, as I've said).
Osage illustrates that here.  'I+you' is ALWAYS /wi-/,
whether in an active or stative construction.  Thus,
for those trying to elicit such things, it's important
to stick to the other pronominals:  'you+me', 'we+you',
'you+us', etc.

But I don't think the above condition applies to
Dakotan, does it?  I don't recall seeing /chi-/ as a
replacement form mi+ni or ma+ni, but there was some
invariant ordering going on in Dakotan that may explain
it.  David was the one who explained all this and he
can answer it.

Bob




----- Original Message -----
From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:10 AM
Subject: Verbs with Multiple Stative Concords


> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, R. Rankin wrote:
> > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern
with at
> > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're
not
> > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative
pronominals.
> > Membership in the class varies, just as
stative-status
> > does across Siouan.
>
> I believe there are no examples of such verbs in the
Dorsey Omaha-Ponca
> texts, and, though I tried hard, within my skills at
the time anyway, to
> elicit comparable forms in OP during fieldwork, I was
unable.
> This is all negative evidence, but I'm inclined to
think that Omaha-Ponca
> just does it differently here.
>
> That said, Carolyn Quintero reports two cases of
double statives in Osage.
>
> wawebraN=pe 'we're (wa) tired of them (wa)' < ibraN
'be tired of'
>
> aN-dhi'-oxta 'you love me'
> < oxta 'to cherish'
>
> However
>
> wi'-oxta=i 'I love you'
>
> follows the regular transitive paradigm, and the
inclusive forms are
>
> aN'oxta=pe 'we love him'
> wao'xta=pe 'they like us'
>
> which follow the regular transitive paradigm.
>
> The closest I got to this pattern was
>
> wi'=s^ti e'=wi-kkic^haNha
> I   too  I'm as tall as you are
>
> Note the reciprocal -kki-.  I got also
>
> e'=s^ti e=aN'-kkic^haNha    'he's as tall as I am'
> e'=s^ti dhi e'=dhi-thaNha  'he's as tall as you are'
(no reciprocal)
>
> For whatever reason, I didn't elicit the important
form,
>
> ???? 'you're as tall as I am'
>
> I think the problem was that my consultant wanted to
revert to the same
> form as 'I'm as tall as you are'.
>
> I tried to fix this by doing 'bigger than' and got
into problems with
> a not unexpected lack of comparative forms, social
issues as to the
> appropriateness of making invidious comparisons, etc.
>
> I also had
>
> e'=dhi-dhaNska   b-dhiN    'I'm as big as you are'
> you're that size I am
>
> So I even wonder about e'=wi-kkic^haNha.
>
> OP 'tired of' is at least an experiencer verb:
>
> JOD 1891:61.3
>
> wadhi'ttaN=the aNwaN'z^edha  he'ga=m=az^i
> work           I am tired of little I not
> I am not a little tired of the work.
>
> The verb is aN Pat1 with u...z^edha.
>
> JEK
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 18:06:26 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:06:26 -0600
Subject: details on new data on double statives
In-Reply-To: <000501c26835$403efb60$6436688e@macdonald>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.120626.0600.>

The message I sent this morning was pretty close to correct.  I'm
reporting material that Regina Pustet elicited in the past few weeks from
Neva Standing Bear.
	iya-ma-ni-khapha 'I am bigger/taller than you'
	iya-ni-ma-khapha 'you are bigger/taller than me'

The Boas and Deloria discussion begins on p. 77.

David

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

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> >
> >
> > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > does across Siouan.
> >
> > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > "stative" set.
>
> I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a 'subject',
> a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that the either
> the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering difference
> with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
>
> Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all how they work,
> because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different from many of
> the Lakhota ones.
>
> Shannon
> (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this works, it
> requires further study'. <grin>)
>


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 18:35:46 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:35:46 -0700
Subject: details on new data on double statives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209301155220.6812-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.113546.0700.>

Super! Thanks so much, David. I'm getting some similar ones to this, but not
invariably, unfortunately. I've decided that the ordering of person markers
(whether pronouns or not, it doesn't matter) is 3rd Person - 1st person -
2nd person - verb. This seems to work throughout the entire system but fails
for 'double-patient' verbs. But then, so does OSV (+ the one exception 'we -
you'). So I've not figured this one out yet. I'll put together my data at
some point (all of which I plan to recheck before then) and show y'all how
screwy it is. :)

Shannon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: September 30, 2002 11:06 AM
> To: Shannon West
> Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: details on new data on double statives
>
>
>
> The message I sent this morning was pretty close to correct.  I'm
> reporting material that Regina Pustet elicited in the past few weeks from
> Neva Standing Bear.
> 	iya-ma-ni-khapha 'I am bigger/taller than you'
> 	iya-ni-ma-khapha 'you are bigger/taller than me'
>
> The Boas and Deloria discussion begins on p. 77.
>
> David
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> > >
> > >
> > > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > > does across Siouan.
> > >
> > > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > > "stative" set.
> >
> > I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with
> a 'subject',
> > a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that
> the either
> > the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> > perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering
> difference
> > with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
> >
> > Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all
> how they work,
> > because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different
> from many of
> > the Lakhota ones.
> >
> > Shannon
> > (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this
> works, it
> > requires further study'. <grin>)
> >
>


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 18:35:53 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:35:53 -0700
Subject: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209292311140.20733-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.113553.0700.>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E
> Sent: September 29, 2002 10:29 PM
> To: Siouan List
> Subject: RE: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> > I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with a
> > 'subject', a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance
> > that the either the subject or object of these verbs is different in
> > some way? A dative perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there
> > some ordering difference with these? I have a set that is completely
> > incomprehensible to me.
>
> Rood & Taylor discuss some aspects of this in the draft version of their
> Lakhota Sketch, but I couldn't locate the section in the published version
> in HBNAI 17.
>
> In OP there seems to be a constraint against having two patient
> pronominals, with the experiencer taking precedence over the theme.  If
> an experiencer is among the arguments, only it can be personal.  In
> Dakotan there were at least some stems that allowed both arguments to be
> pronominals, but the second person was always first (outer), as I recall
> it.
>
> Whatever principles or diagnostics enable you to select as subject the
> agent if present, and the patient if not, will probably support the
> experiencer as subject, too.

Thanks John. I haven't needed to use semantic roles for the most part, and
likely won't be (gotta work within theory restrictions, and for now that's
Minimalism).

There are definitely some verbs with 2 'stative' person markers - thawa 'to
own' comes to mind immediately. As I said in my note to David, I'll dredge
up this data again and post some of it for your
information/enjoyment/confusion/amusement at my pain of trying to figure it
out. ;)

Shannon


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 18:51:04 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:51:04 -0600
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMMEODCLAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.125104.0600.>

Shannon,
	I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.
Thus wa/ya are closest to the verb, and exhibit a lot of phonological
reductions.  Next to the left come ma/ni; to the left of that comes uNk,
and to the left of that comes wicha.  Whether uNk is treated as
subject or object depends on what it occurs with, not its sequence in
the string.  It's the affix, not its role, that has an ordering constraint.
With the double statives, the SOV order used for the rest of the language
seems to be adopted.
	I know that isn't going to fit into a tree very well.
	David
David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

> Super! Thanks so much, David. I'm getting some similar ones to this, but not
> invariably, unfortunately. I've decided that the ordering of person markers
> (whether pronouns or not, it doesn't matter) is 3rd Person - 1st person -
> 2nd person - verb. This seems to work throughout the entire system but fails
> for 'double-patient' verbs. But then, so does OSV (+ the one exception 'we -
> you'). So I've not figured this one out yet. I'll put together my data at
> some point (all of which I plan to recheck before then) and show y'all how
> screwy it is. :)
>
> Shannon
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> > Sent: September 30, 2002 11:06 AM
> > To: Shannon West
> > Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: details on new data on double statives
> >
> >
> >
> > The message I sent this morning was pretty close to correct.  I'm
> > reporting material that Regina Pustet elicited in the past few weeks from
> > Neva Standing Bear.
> > 	iya-ma-ni-khapha 'I am bigger/taller than you'
> > 	iya-ni-ma-khapha 'you are bigger/taller than me'
> >
> > The Boas and Deloria discussion begins on p. 77.
> >
> > David
> >
> > David S. Rood
> > Dept. of Linguistics
> > Univ. of Colorado
> > 295 UCB
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> > USA
> > rood at colorado.edu
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin
> > > > Sent: September 29, 2002 4:16 PM
> > > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: Error Condition Re: Re: transitivity, etc,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think all the MVS languages have this pattern with at
> > > > least a few of those "experiencer" verbs.  They're not
> > > > just Dakotan, and you can get two stative pronominals.
> > > > Membership in the class varies, just as stative-status
> > > > does across Siouan.
> > > >
> > > > If you believe that "subject" is part of "UG", then you
> > > > have verbs with stative subjects acting transitively on
> > > > objects -- both marked w/ pronominals from the
> > > > "stative" set.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering about this too. Given that I do have to work with
> > a 'subject',
> > > a work-around is going to be in order. Is there any chance that
> > the either
> > > the subject or object of these verbs is different in some way? A dative
> > > perhaps? (I'm grasping at straws). Also, is there some ordering
> > difference
> > > with these? I have a set that is completely incomprehensible to me.
> > >
> > > Linda? Do you have a set of these in Nakota? Any idea at all
> > how they work,
> > > because they seem to be out to lunch and completely different
> > from many of
> > > the Lakhota ones.
> > >
> > > Shannon
> > > (I am *so* hoping to deal with this as a 'I don't know how this
> > works, it
> > > requires further study'. <grin>)
> > >
> >
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Sep 30 19:24:49 2002
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:24:49 -0500
Subject: ordering of person markers
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.142449.0500.>

> I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.

AND this problem extends far beyond just the pronominals.  It clearly DOES
apply to the pronominals, but it is also the determining factor in post
verbal clitic ordering too.  There is a paper coauthored by me, John Boyle,
Randy and John Koontz that makes this point among others.  I've been
preaching it in most of the papers I've given over the past 3 or 4 years.

Synchronists (and I'm reacting to the situation in my own dept. here, guys)
have taken to believing that word/morpheme order is strictly and 100%
governed by syntactic rules -- often simply reflecting "UG".  To anyone with
an ounce of serious work in historical linguistics, it is obvious that
constituent ordering is often the result of historical fluke, reanalysis,
boundary collapse, etc.  Without mastery of the historical development of
the syntax of a language, linguists will quite generally fail in trying to
differentiate what orderings evince aspects of UG and what orderings are
accidents of history.  And they don't want to hear this.  And in my dept.
they REALLY don't want to hear it -- our syntactician's degree is in
psychology, and she's never had a course in historical ling.  She says
openly that it's just "that old fusty outmoded Grimm's Law stuff."

I just made an enemy at out Colloquium when a (very smart) Chinese student
presented a paper "showing" that the ordering of the infamous morpheme /ba/
in Chinese was derived from UG.  I rashly pointed out that "ba" is known to
have been a verb at one time, and, that it is still located syntactically
EXACTLY where verbs in Chinese sentences have always been located.
Historically, additional phrases, etc. have been added to the end of the
clause, but "ba" has never moved.  It hasn't undergone a "universal"
movement rule as it has become grammaticalized; it just never budged at all.
It wasn't a popular comment.

So the point David has perceptively made here is not trivial at all.  It is
central to our continuing understand of synchronic syntax in all languages.

Off my soapbox now. . . .

Bob


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Sep 30 21:43:02 2002
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:43:02 -0700
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209301244020.6812-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.144302.0700.>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: September 30, 2002 11:51 AM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: ordering of person markers
>
>
>
> Shannon,
> 	I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
> theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
> they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.
> Thus wa/ya are closest to the verb, and exhibit a lot of phonological
> reductions.  Next to the left come ma/ni; to the left of that comes uNk,
> and to the left of that comes wicha.  Whether uNk is treated as
> subject or object depends on what it occurs with, not its sequence in
> the string.  It's the affix, not its role, that has an ordering
> constraint.
> With the double statives, the SOV order used for the rest of the language
> seems to be adopted.
> 	I know that isn't going to fit into a tree very well.

I know that this is the diachronic explanation, but that doesn't offer a
synchronic explanation. The speakers of the language don't know the
historical background, and can't use that to figure out which positions
these affixes appear. Your diachronic explanation would have to be fitted
with a templatic account. I don't so much mind templates, but they're not
exactly popular right now, if you know what I mean. Right now, the general
feeling is that there should be rules that the learner can use to figure out
where things go rather than templates to learn.

The SOV order isn't fixed for the double statives in my data, but I do need
to check this out again.

Shannon


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Sep 30 22:46:00 2002
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:46:00 -0600
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <DGECJCJMGOEJKGCEPLFMGEOGCLAA.shanwest@uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.164600.0600.>

See Bob's Soapbox Address.  The synchronic explanation IS the diachronic
one -- that's the order that speakers learn and use.  Templates may not be
popular, but they are what people do!!  I'm convinced that these things
are memorized as chunks (wichun 'we-them', chi 'I-you"), etc., even in
English, where 'you and I' is learned as a unit and I is no longer
declinable ("for you and I" is used by speakers who would never say "for I").

Grrrr.




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

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> > Sent: September 30, 2002 11:51 AM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: ordering of person markers
> >
> >
> >
> > Shannon,
> > 	I don't know how you will get this to be accepted by the
> > theoreticians, but the real facts about Lakhota person markers are that
> > they occur in the order in which they were historically added to the verb.
> > Thus wa/ya are closest to the verb, and exhibit a lot of phonological
> > reductions.  Next to the left come ma/ni; to the left of that comes uNk,
> > and to the left of that comes wicha.  Whether uNk is treated as
> > subject or object depends on what it occurs with, not its sequence in
> > the string.  It's the affix, not its role, that has an ordering
> > constraint.
> > With the double statives, the SOV order used for the rest of the language
> > seems to be adopted.
> > 	I know that isn't going to fit into a tree very well.
>
> I know that this is the diachronic explanation, but that doesn't offer a
> synchronic explanation. The speakers of the language don't know the
> historical background, and can't use that to figure out which positions
> these affixes appear. Your diachronic explanation would have to be fitted
> with a templatic account. I don't so much mind templates, but they're not
> exactly popular right now, if you know what I mean. Right now, the general
> feeling is that there should be rules that the learner can use to figure out
> where things go rather than templates to learn.
>
> The SOV order isn't fixed for the double statives in my data, but I do need
> to check this out again.
>
> Shannon
>


From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu  Mon Sep 30 23:11:50 2002
From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:11:50 -0700
Subject: ordering of person markers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0209301641130.17586-100000@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.30.SEP.2002.161150.0700.>

I can't help saying Hooray for Bob and David! It's what Marianne and I have
been saying over and over and over for years. How can these so-called
"theoreticians" be so myopic? It continues to mystify me.
Wally