From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk  Mon Dec  1 18:43:21 2003
From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:43:21 +0000
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <MON.1.DEC.2003.184321.0000.>

Folks:

As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas R
Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least some
of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words ending
in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but I
may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING like
that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.

Anthony


From parksd at indiana.edu  Mon Dec  1 19:20:17 2003
From: parksd at indiana.edu (Parks, Douglas R.)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <MON.1.DEC.2003.142017.0500.>

Anthony,

It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but the
"Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like it.
My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I listened
again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)

That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a TV
serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii'," which
means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not surprising,
though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.

Doug



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Dances with Wolves

Folks:

As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas R
Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least some
of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words ending
in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but I
may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING like
that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.

Anthony


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Dec  2 11:13:37 2003
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:13:37 -0000
Subject: Dances with Wolves
In-Reply-To: <52BA675BF5A226458392EB21207B522A525465@iu-mssg-mbx06.exchange.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.111337.0000.>

Sorry, but why does the nature of Pawnee and Arikara lead to it
becoming gibberish in films.  I'm fascinated
Bruce

On 1 Dec 2003 at 14:20, Parks, Douglas R. wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
Send reply to:  	siouan at lists.colorado.edu
From:           	"Parks, Douglas R." <parksd at indiana.edu>
To:             	<siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Subject:        	RE: Dances with Wolves

> Anthony,
>
> It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but the
> "Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like it.
> My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I listened
> again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)
>
> That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a TV
> serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
> playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii'," which
> means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
> sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
> Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not surprising,
> though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://mail.giantcompany.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Dances with Wolves
>
> Folks:
>
> As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas R
> Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least some
> of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
> something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words ending
> in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but I
> may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING like
> that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.
>
> Anthony
>
>


From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk  Tue Dec  2 12:24:28 2003
From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:24:28 +0000
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.122428.0000.>

It may have something to do with people's difficulties in finding
speakers of the language who can coach others for the purposes of syaing
their lies in the relevant language.

Remember that Michael Blake's novel fratured Comanches rather than
Lakhotas as the tribe that Dunbar settled among. I do wonder f the
switch was made because it was easier to find a Lakota-speaker to coach
people in dialogue than a Comanche speaker.  (Though John Ford must have
found one of the latter during the filming of The Searchers.)

Anthony

>>> bi1 at soas.ac.uk 02/12/2003 11:13:37 >>>
Sorry, but why does the nature of Pawnee and Arikara lead to it
becoming gibberish in films.  I'm fascinated
Bruce

On 1 Dec 2003 at 14:20, Parks, Douglas R. wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
Send reply to:  	siouan at lists.colorado.edu
From:           	"Parks, Douglas R." <parksd at indiana.edu>
To:             	<siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Subject:        	RE: Dances with Wolves

> Anthony,
>
> It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but
the
> "Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like
it.
> My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I
listened
> again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)
>
> That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a
TV
> serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
> playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii',"
which
> means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
> sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
> Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not
surprising,
> though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://mail.giantcompany.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Dances with Wolves
>
> Folks:
>
> As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas
R
> Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least
some
> of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
> something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words
ending
> in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but
I
> may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING
like
> that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.
>
> Anthony
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Dec  2 14:47:01 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:47:01 -0600
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.084701.0600.>

My impression is that there are no more fluent
Pawnee speakers and precious few if any Rees.  I
can't remember who told me that though.

> Remember that Michael Blake's novel fratured
Comanches rather than
> Lakhotas as the tribe that Dunbar settled among.
I do wonder f the
> switch was made because it was easier to find a
Lakota-speaker to coach
> people in dialogue than a Comanche speaker.
(Though John Ford must have
> found one of the latter during the filming of
The Searchers.)

And the real Lt. Dunbar was with the Pawnees.

Bob


From warr0120 at umn.edu  Tue Dec  2 14:59:40 2003
From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:59:40 CST
Subject: Dances with Wolves, special edition dvd
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.085940.CST.>

If you want a lot of information on the movie, check out the recently
released special edition dvd (may 2003). First of all, the movie has an
extra HOUR of footage, so it's now four hours long! Lots more historical
setting, more language scenes, more of lakhota culture, all around better.
There's two documentaries included - one from when the movie was made and a
new one. But for backround you can't beat the director's commentary. You
get to listen (if you want) to Kevin Costner and producer Jim Wilson talk
for four hours about the movie as you watch it: how it was made, the
script, the filming locations (almost entirely South Dakota: it was the
best/only place to get a large herd of buffalo to do good acting), the
actors, the language and culture, how to not get run over by a buffalo... I
don't think they ever commented on what the "pawnee" guys were speaking.

I paid $20 for it, and I bet some video stores will have it too. And while
you're out shopping pick up Atanarjuat (Fast Runner), an inuit film of a
traditional inuit story entirely in inuktitut and with all inuit actors,
and Whale Rider, a maori film - easily the most inspirational movie I've
ever seen (make sure your kids see it too). But watch Atanarjuat first,
cause you'll need the New Zealand weather to warm you up after all that
time in the arctic.


Pat Warren


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Tue Dec  2 15:13:23 2003
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:13:23 -0500
Subject: Dances with Wolves
In-Reply-To: <sfcc8491.092@emma.edgehill.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.101323.0500.>

According to a companion book to the film, S. Dakota was chosen because there
was a large buffalo herd there. (Even the Civil War scenes were shot there, and
trees  and grass were spray-painted to make it look like the southeast.) Perhaps
the location dictated the shift from Comanche to Lakota.  As noted in earlier
messages, there were only two fluent Dakotan speakers in the cast, Doris Leader
Charge (Lakota) who served as the language coach, and Floyd Red Crow Westerman
(Dakota).  Incidentally, most of the  scenes with more authentic Lakota speech
were cut for the theater version, but have been restored in the director's cut
(4 hrs. long, but with the virtue of allowing skipping to the restored village
scenes where the two fluent speakers have more extended conversations with each
other.)

Linda

Quoting Anthony Grant <Granta at edgehill.ac.uk>:

> It may have something to do with people's difficulties in finding
> speakers of the language who can coach others for the purposes of syaing
> their lies in the relevant language.
>
> Remember that Michael Blake's novel fratured Comanches rather than
> Lakhotas as the tribe that Dunbar settled among. I do wonder f the
> switch was made because it was easier to find a Lakota-speaker to coach
> people in dialogue than a Comanche speaker.  (Though John Ford must have
> found one of the latter during the filming of The Searchers.)
>
> Anthony
>
> >>> bi1 at soas.ac.uk 02/12/2003 11:13:37 >>>
> Sorry, but why does the nature of Pawnee and Arikara lead to it
> becoming gibberish in films.  I'm fascinated
> Bruce
>
> On 1 Dec 2003 at 14:20, Parks, Douglas R. wrote:
>
> Date sent:      	Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
> Send reply to:  	siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> From:           	"Parks, Douglas R." <parksd at indiana.edu>
> To:             	<siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Subject:        	RE: Dances with Wolves
>
> > Anthony,
> >
> > It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but
> the
> > "Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like
> it.
> > My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I
> listened
> > again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)
> >
> > That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a
> TV
> > serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
> > playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii',"
> which
> > means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
> > sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
> > Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not
> surprising,
> > though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> > Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> > http://mail.giantcompany.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Dances with Wolves
> >
> > Folks:
> >
> > As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas
> R
> > Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least
> some
> > of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
> > something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words
> ending
> > in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but
> I
> > may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING
> like
> > that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


From jkyle at ku.edu  Tue Dec  2 18:19:59 2003
From: jkyle at ku.edu (John Kyle)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:19:59 -0600
Subject: Dances with Wolves, special edition dvd
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.121959.0600.>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Warren" <warr0120 at umn.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Dances with Wolves, special edition dvd


>
> . And while you're out shopping pick up [...] Whale Rider, a maori film -
easily the most inspirational movie I've
> ever seen (make sure your kids see it too). But watch Atanarjuat first,
> cause you'll need the New Zealand weather to warm you up after all that
> time in the arctic.
>
> Pat Warren
>
Not to go too far off topic... but I agree that Whale Rider is one of the
best movies I've seen.  I urge everyone to watch it.

John Kyle
jkyle at ku.edu

**************************************
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
        - Pres. Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 19:43:23 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:43:23 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.114323.0800.>


Dear Siouanists,



It all started with some innocent work on noun incorporation in Lakota. In this context, my Lakota speaker came up with forms such as



(1)        thi-w-�-wa-'uN

house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint

(both components of the verb i'�N 'to paint' (also pronounced iy�N) are glossed by 'paint')

'I paint the house'



This example contrasts with

(2)        thi-'�-wa-'uN

            house-paint-1SG.AG-paint

'I paint the house'



The structural difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) contains the non-specific patient marker *w-*, whose full form is *wa-*. But there is also a subtle semantic difference between the two examples: according to my Lakota speaker, (1) actually means 'I paint the house in many areas', while (2) simply means 'I paint the house'. Syntactically, the remarkable thing about (1) is that this example admits two affixal objects: *thi-* 'house' and *w-* 'non-specific object'. But what puzzled me the most was the translation of *w-* by 'in many areas'. We get more of this in (3) and (4):



(3)            waks^�-w-i'uN

            plate-WA-paint

            'to paint different kinds of plates'



(4)            waks^�-'i'uN

            plate-paint

            'to paint plates', *'to paint different kinds of plates'



Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:



(5)        it�wapi ki   h�  wa-w-�-wa-'uN

            picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint

            'I am painting that picture with different colors'



The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors' here. This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:



(6)        s�pa w-�-wa-'uN

            black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint

            'I paint it black'



ungrammatical:

(7)        s�pa wa-w-�-wa-'uN

            black   WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint

            'I paint it black'



The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-* and the color term *s�pa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.

Unfortunately, so far, I was unable to identify the exact extra-linguistic referent of *w-* in (5) and (6).



Still, all this seems to imply that in the case of examples (1), (3) and (5), *wa-* has a semantic connotation that could be rendered by the gloss 'variety object', rather than simply by 'things, stuff, etc.' as is usually done for *wa-* (which is of course appropriate in most other cases). The following examples should bring this out even more clearly:



(8)        wa-y�ha

            WA-have

            'he has all kinds of things'



(9)        w�-ha

            WA+YU-have

            'he has things/everything (like a rich person)'



The form *w�-* in (6) results from contraction of *wa-* with the instrumental prefix *yu-*. *w�-* conveys the meaning of "regular" non-specific patient, while *way�-* seems to indicate a variety object. Not every verb that starts with *yu-*, however, admits the two contrasting expression formats for *wa-* that we see in (8) and (9): For *yu'�chetu* 'to make it right', there is only *way�'echetu*, but not *w�'echetu*. So far, all tested yu-verbs that do not have alternating *wa-*- forms have a *way�-*-form but not a *w�-*-form, with one exception: *y�ta* 'to eat'. *w�ta* is fine but *way�ta* is not grammatical. Plus, not in every case in which there are alternating *wa-*-forms, corresponding meaning distinctions could be elicited.

A further argument for keeping *w�-* and *way�-* forms apart, not only semantically, can be derived from the fact that for 1st and 2nd person, *w�-* and *way�-* forms inflect differently:



(10)      wa-bl�s^taN

            WA-1SG.AG.finish

            'I finish a lot of things'



(11)      w�-wa-s^taN

            WA+YU-1SG.AG-finish

            'I am done'



The two main questions which are implicit in these data are:

(a) Does a distinction between a marker for "plain" non-specific object vs. a similar or identical marker for variety object surface in other Siouan languages as well? What are the exact semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in other Siouan languages? Are there Siouan languages in which the etymological equivalent of Lakota *wa-* functions to code the notion of variety object only?

(b) On the assumption that the two meanings of Lakota *wa-* ("plain" non-specific object vs. 'variety object') are historically connected, which meaning is older? Grammaticalization theory, via the concept of semantic bleaching, would predict that the meaning 'variety object' is older than the meaning 'non-specific object' since it can be argued that the former meaning is less abstract than the latter. But generally, I don't care much for deductive reasoning of this sort, I'd rather draw my conclusions on the basis of data from related languages. That's why I'd like to see some "cross-Siouan" data on this.



Best,

Regina



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031210/ee404493/attachment.html>

From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 10 20:14:39 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:39 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.141439.0600.>

Hi Regina,

These are interesting and vexed questions.  I
imagine others will have a variety of things to
say about them.  Unfortunately Dakotan is one of
the few Siouan languages where it is possible to
really experiment with these concepts.  My
impression from your examples is that your
evidence tends to support David's notion that wa-
is really a valence-changing device rather than a
prefix that marks a direct object that is simply
non-specific.  In other words, the "variety"
translations are speakers' attempts to somehow
convey the fact that these verb forms are actually
INtransitive.   Wa- is just a detransitivizer in
these examples.  This means that, in the sentences
with an incorporated thi 'house' and also the
detransitivizing wa-, you don't have two
objects -- rather you have NO objects.
Incorporated nouns can't serve as arguments of the
verb, and wa- confirms that the verb is
intransitive.  This is relatively close to what we
get in English with the answer to the question
"What did you spend yesterday doing?"  Answer: "I
was house-painting."  'House' isn't the object;
the verb is intransitive.  We can't say *"I
house-painted yesterday", but in Siouan you can.
And "I house-painted" is different in transitivity
from "I painted a/the house."

The translations with "all over" or "different
kinds of" are a bit misleading.  The Dakotan form
there, it seems to me, is just "I plate-painted."
or "I house-painted."  The "in many places" or
"different kinds of" meaning may be implied, but
it is not stated, since the V is simply
intransitive.

> (a) Does a distinction between a marker for
"plain" non-specific object vs. a similar or
identical marker for variety object surface in
other Siouan languages as well? What are the exact
semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in
other Siouan languages? Are there Siouan languages
in which the etymological equivalent of Lakota
*wa-* functions to code the notion of variety
object only?

In most Siouan languages there is more than one
prefix with the shape WA-.  We will need to be
careful with our examples here.  Luckily in
Dakotan there is no 1st plural object prefix with
that form, as there is in Dhegiha.  Some of the
prefixes may have vowel length distinctions too.

> (b) On the assumption that the two meanings of
Lakota *wa-* ("plain" non-specific object vs.
'variety object') are historically connected,
which meaning is older? Grammaticalization theory,
via the concept of semantic bleaching, would
predict that the meaning 'variety object' is older
than the meaning 'non-specific object' since it
can be argued that the former meaning is less
abstract than the latter.

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there is
really such a difference in Dakotan or whether it
is just in the speakers' English translations, as
they struggle to "explain" how such verb forms can
be rendered into English.  They have a problem
because English requires a transitive translation
of a grammatically intransitive verb.

Bob


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 20:47:57 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:47:57 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <004101c3bf5a$51ae38c0$1cb5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.134757.0700.>

As you might surmise, the email from Regina was not sent out of the blue;
she and I have been debating this for a couple of weeks now.  I haven't
been able to come up with anything as neat as Bob's theory, however, and I
think he makes very good sense.  I guess I was misled by my exprience with
Wichita noun incorporation, where the incorporated object usually IS an
argument of the verb.

It is certainly the case that Lakota speakers manipulate valence readily.
Another example is a noun like wakhalyapi 'coffee'.  (I think I have said
this before, so if I'm repeating myself to you, please forgive me -- maybe
there is someone on the list who hasn't heard it.) The root is stative
khat- 'be hot'; it is made causative with -ya, thereby adding an agent, so
now it has two arguments, viz. 'S/he heated it.'.  Then you add the -pi,
which is here (I claim -- not uncontroversial) a passive, effectively
deleting the agent again, but now the remaining argument is the object of
a transitive verb, not the subject of stative verb.  The construction at
this point means something like 'it has been heated'.  Finally, you add
the wa- to take away that remaining argument, and you have a zero-argument
construction only approximately rendered in English with 'heated stuff'.

David

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:

> Hi Regina,
 My impression from your examples is that your evidence tends to support
> David's notion that wa- is really a valence-changing device rather than
> a prefix that marks a direct object that is simply non-specific.  In
> other words, the "variety" translations are speakers' attempts to
> somehow convey the fact that these verb forms are actually INtransitive.
> Wa- is just a detransitivizer in these examples.  This means that, in
> the sentences with an incorporated thi 'house' and also the
> detransitivizing wa-, you don't have two objects -- rather you have NO
> objects. Incorporated nouns can't serve as arguments of the verb, and
> wa- confirms that the verb is intransitive.  This is relatively close to
> what we get in English with the answer to the question "What did you
> spend yesterday doing?"  Answer: "I was house-painting."  'House' isn't
> the object; the verb is intransitive.  We can't say *"I house-painted
> yesterday", but in Siouan you can. And "I house-painted" is different in
> transitivity from "I painted a/the house."


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 21:18:42 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:18:42 -0700
Subject: Inflecting 'to paint'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.141842.0700.>

In the course of our discussions of the wa- that Regina has just written
about, I noticed some strange behavior in the morphology of this verb 'to
paint, to spread on, to annoint' and wondered whether other Siouanists
have either parallel examples or some more insightful explanation of the
facts than "analogy".
	The verb may or may not have the initial w-, as Regina points out.
Otherwise, there seem to be two pronunciations: i'uN and iyuN.  Buechel
records only the variant with -y-, but Regina's speaker alternates freely.
	At this point, we seem to have a possible epenthetic /y/
optionally replacing a glottal stop, or a glottal stop replacing a /y/ --
something that doesn't bother me much, though I can't think of any other
places where that happens.
	The problem is that the first person form is iwayuN or iwa'uN,
plural uNkiyuNpi according to Buechel, but when the wiyuN form is used,
Neva (our speaker) says it has to be wiyuNk'uNpi or wi'uNk'uNpi.  Now the
y/' alternation is transferred to BEFORE the pronominal affix, and the
root consonant seems to be unambiguously a glottal stop.
	Questions: is the etymology of this word i 'instrument' plus 'uN
'use'?  Evidence for yes: the organic glottal evidenced by the first
person plural inflected forms, and the fact that the first person plural
goes in front of the verb if there is no w-.  Evidence for no: the first
person singular prefix is -wa-, not -m-.
	Alternative: the /y/ is organic, and the verb has nothing to do
with 'use'. Evidence for: Buechel's consistent transcription with /y/;
evidence against: the first person plural forms of the w- verb, where the
y/' alternation occurs between different morphemes, albeit in the same
phonemic (not phonetic, not necessarily phonological, but phonemic)
environment (i_uN).  I think the apparent uniqueness of the glide
alternation here is also evidence against this.  Moreover, if the /y/ were
part of the verb stem, then the correct first person singular inflection
(before the nasal vowel) should be either -m- or -mn- replacing the /y/.
	Alternative: the verb stem is i'uN, but 'uN is not the 'use' verb.
There is a verb 'uN that inflects wa'uN, uNk'uNpi, but it means 'live,
exist', and I rule it out on semantic grounds. So this theory would
imply that there is a third -'uN root, perhaps attested in only this
verb (with the instrumental prefix, supposedly).  This accounts
for everything, I think, except the phonetically plausible y/'
alternation.
	Question: what does anyone else think is the phonological UR of
this verb stem?  Is there etymological data that might give us a clue?

David

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


From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc  Wed Dec 10 21:01:42 2003
From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:01:42 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.150142.0600.>

Hi gang:
I will let you linguists battle it out.
I will stay with William K. Powers explanation.
Wa is a noun marker.
Examples:
Wapes'a =not red hair but a roach headdress.
Wahminake = not something in the wait belt but a bunch of braided grass or
later the Crow Bustle.
Waanatan =not some one who is rushing forward but Chief Charger of the
Sisseton's (he was half Yanktonai and half Sisseton, he stayed with his
mothers people)
Later,
Louie


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 22:58:53 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:58:53 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <004101c3bf5a$51ae38c0$1cb5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.145853.0800.>

Hi Bob:

You brought up something that I haven't thought of yet
-- explaining the structures I have via the
detransitivizing function of *wa-*. But let's see how
this works in detail in my examples. In

(1)	thi-w-�-wa-'uN
        house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint

the starting point is the transitive verb *i'u`N* 'to
paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT. *wa-*
as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the PAT.
So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus PAT,
i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with incorporated
*thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in (1)
there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the additional
PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*? In
your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to paint'
minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1] for PAT.

But we can take it even further. My speaker also gave
me

(2)	w-�-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
        'they ask around about him'

and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
verb *iy�Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that, after
three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations, we'd
get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude that
rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-* functions
to add slots, at least in some cases.

Regina






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:10:07 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:10:07 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031210194323.69568.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.161007.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> (1) thi-w-í-wa-'uN
>     house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint the house'
>
> (2) thi-'í-wa-'uN
>     house-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint the house'
>
> The structural difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) contains the
> non-specific patient marker *w-*, whose full form is *wa-*. But there is
> also a subtle semantic difference between the two examples: according to
> my Lakota speaker, (1) actually means 'I paint the house in many areas',
> while (2) simply means 'I paint the house'.

I wonder if this wouldn't account for the situation.  Suppose that i?uN
'to paint' takes two objects, the thing painted, and the paint or maybe
(also?) the place on the thing painted that gets painted.  The paint or
place painted is governed, essentially, by the i- "locative," while the
thing painted is governed by the whole stem (or maybe just by ?uN?).  If
you omit the w- and use thi?i?uN then thi is clearly the thing painted and
the unspecified paint is understood to be one specific color (or place,
presumably the whole thing).  If you include w(a)- to produce thiwi?uN,
then this w(a)- necessarily refers to the colors painted with or places
painted on.  Or perhaps we should say that w(a)- doesn't so much refer to
these places and indicate that they are unspecified.

This is the sort of usage of wa-, of course, that must underlie the use of
wa- as a plural marker in other Siouan languages.

> Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:
>
> (5) itówapi ki   hé  wa-w-í-wa-'uN
>     picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I am painting that picture with different colors'
>
> The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors'
> here.

What puzzles me here is that while I'd agree that one wa- refers to the
colors, I'd say the second wa- was the thing painted, but I didn't think a
wa- object marker could be combined with an NP for the reference.

> This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:
>
> (6) sápa w-í-wa-'uN
>     black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint it black'
>
> (7) *sápa wa-w-í-wa-'uN
>     black   WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint it black'
>
> The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-*
> and the color term *sápa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.

I'd have said that (7) was ungrammatical because sapa acted as the 'paint
or place painted' object while the w(a)- acted as the thing painted
object.

> The following examples should bring this out even more clearly:
>
> (8)  wa-yúha
>      WA-have
>      'he has all kinds of things'
>
> (9)  wó-ha
>      WA+YU-have
>      'he has things/everything (like a rich person)'

> The form *wó-* in (6) results from contraction of *wa-* with the
> instrumental prefix *yu-*. *wó-* conveys the meaning of "regular"
> non-specific patient, while *wayú-* seems to indicate a variety object.
> Not every verb that starts with *yu-*, however, admits the two
> contrasting expression formats ...  So far, all tested yu-verbs that do
> not have alternating *wa-*- forms have a *wayú-*-form but not a
> *wó-*-form, with one exception: *yúta* 'to eat'. *wóta* is fine but
> *wayúta* is not grammatical.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily the same thing.  I think the usual
explanation is that the wo- contract forms are conservative and have less
transparent meanings, while the wa-yu- forms are regularized and
transparent.  The only wo-form that I was really aware of was wota, which
also has first person forms wa-ta A1 and ya-ta A2 (yu- missing).  I don't
think the other wo- contracts have this propert either, right?  This has
one comparable correspondent outside of Dakotan.  Winnebago has ruuc^,
inflected ha-c^ A1, ra-c^ A2.  I don't recall that there's anything
unusual about the *wa + ru with this stem, but I'll check.  As far as I
know, this is the only verb like this in Winnebago.

There may be something a bit unusual going on with 'eat', but perhaps the
rest of the examples are simply more transparent vs. less transparent
cases, rather than varietal objects?

> A further argument for keeping *wó-* and *wayú-* forms apart, not only
> semantically, can be derived from the fact that for 1st and 2nd person,
> *wó-* and *wayú-* forms inflect differently:
>
> (10)  wa-blús^taN
>       WA-1SG.AG.finish
>       'I finish a lot of things'
>
> (11)  wó-wa-s^taN
>       WA+YU-1SG.AG-finish
>       'I am done'

The pattern of inflection is interesting, since it suggests that once w-y-
contracts to wo- it becomes morphologically individual.  I suppose it
infixes because w- is not a permitted stem initial, leading to an infixing
template being selected.

> The two main questions which are implicit in these data are:
>
> (a) Does a distinction between a marker for "plain" non-specific object
> vs. a similar or identical marker for variety object surface in other
> Siouan languages as well?

Not to my knowledge.

> What are the exact semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in
> other Siouan languages?

In Dhegiha there are two wa- markers:  one acts like the usual perception
of wa- in Dakotan - a detransitivizer or valence reducer, with the
peculiarities we've discussed in the past - namely that it seems to be
more of an indefinite object (or subject) than an elimination of the slot
per se.  The other use in Dhegiha is analogous to wic^ha- in Dakotan - as
a third person plural object.  I'm not counting wa-a- as the patient form
of the inclusive marker.  That is, Dakotan uNk- equates to OP aNg- (A12)
and wa-a- (P12).

I've eliminated the other questions for now, since it seems like they
depend on a yes answer to the first one.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 23:12:17 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:12:17 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031210225853.97654.qmail@web40004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.161217.0700.>

> Hi Bob:
>
> You brought up something that I haven't thought of yet
> -- explaining the structures I have via the
> detransitivizing function of *wa-*. But let's see how
> this works in detail in my examples. In
>
> (1)	thi-w-�-wa-'uN
>         house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>
> the starting point is the transitive verb *i'u`N* 'to
> paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT. *wa-*
> as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the PAT.
> So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus PAT,
> i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with incorporated
> *thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in (1)
> there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the additional
> PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*? In
> your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to paint'
> minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1] for PAT.


Sorry -- I only see one WA- prefix here; the other one is the first person
agent.




>
> But we can take it even further. My speaker also gave
> me
>
> (2)	w-�-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
>         'they ask around about him'
>
> and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> verb *iy�Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that, after
> three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations, we'd
> get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude that
> rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-* functions
> to add slots, at least in some cases.
>
Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix this time.  iyunga is
di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and wawiunga.  I don't know a
verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for wiwawiyungapi.  The thing
that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.

David




> Regina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 23:22:22 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:22:22 -0700
Subject: addendum to previous note on wa-
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.162222.0700.>

Sorry -- I was too hasty in reporting on wiyunga and didn't clarify.
Iyunga is ditransitive, it means 'to ask someone something' and both
objects can be overt (he asked me my name).  Wiyunga, with one wa-,
deletes the non-animate object, so you get something like 'to
interrogate', a transitive verb.  wawiyunga then deletes that, and means
'to go around asking questions, to be nosy'.  My remarks about i'iyunga
from the previous message aren't affected by this.

David



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


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:25:55 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:25:55 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312101354270.21423@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.162555.0700.>

I omitted to mention that "spray-paint" verbs and their objects are rather
interesting in English, too.


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:32:56 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:32:56 -0600
Subject: Inflecting 'to paint'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.173256.0600.>

I'd have to say at the outset that analogy
probably IS the mechanism that has produced these
interesting verb forms.  But, that said, let me
repeat what I think I've said before on the list
(and if I haven't, I've said it elsewhere) about
/?uN/.  The comparative evidence shows very
clearly that this verb means 'do' (and in some
contexts 'be', or maybe they're homophones).  This
is true in every language that has it except
Dakotan.  'Do' is routinely conjugated /m-uN/ in
the 1st person with irregular forms in the other
persons as well.

Then the instrument prefix, /i-/ logically makes
the verb */i-?uN/ mean 'to do with', in other
words 'to use'.  In an ideal linguistic universe
it too would be irregular in exactly the same ways
as 'to do, be'.  In some languages this
conservative situation holds.  But Dakotan (alone)
has really "screwed the kitty" on this pair of
verbs.  It seems to have lost the instrumental
/i-/ and made the difference between 'do' and
'use' a matter of pronominal choice, so we have,
in the 1st person, wa?uN versus m-uN.  Loss of
/i-/ is inexplicable in Dakotan, but spread of the
regular pronominal set is analogical. Other
Mississippi Valley Siouan languages have kept the
conservative forms and not lost instrumental /i-/

Dakotan seems to have REapplied the instrumental
/i-/ to derive an entirely new verb with the
narrowed meaning 'to paint'.  But in Kaw the
verb(s) 'to paint' seem all to be reflexive
/íkkik?oN, ikkinoN/ 'paint'.  Clearly, they are
formed on the basis of */?oN/ 'do', and, equally
clearly, one verb above has the expected glottal
stop while the other has an epenthetic /-n-/, the
expected correspondent to the Dakotan /-y-/.  So
Dhegiha has this same problem.  Can any of the
Dakotan /-i-/ phonemes be considered a variant of
'reflexive'?  If so, Dakotan would match the
Dhegiha forms.  Beyond that, I haven't had a
chance to try to figure out what's what.

Bob

> In the course of our discussions of the wa- that
Regina has just written
> about, I noticed some strange behavior in the
morphology of this verb 'to
> paint, to spread on, to annoint' and wondered
whether other Siouanists
> have either parallel examples or some more
insightful explanation of the
> facts than "analogy".
> The verb may or may not have the initial w-, as
Regina points out.
> Otherwise, there seem to be two pronunciations:
i'uN and iyuN.  Buechel
> records only the variant with -y-, but Regina's
speaker alternates freely.
> At this point, we seem to have a possible
epenthetic /y/
> optionally replacing a glottal stop, or a
glottal stop replacing a /y/ --
> something that doesn't bother me much, though I
can't think of any other
> places where that happens.
> The problem is that the first person form is
iwayuN or iwa'uN,
> plural uNkiyuNpi according to Buechel, but when
the wiyuN form is used,
> Neva (our speaker) says it has to be wiyuNk'uNpi
or wi'uNk'uNpi.  Now the
> y/' alternation is transferred to BEFORE the
pronominal affix, and the
> root consonant seems to be unambiguously a
glottal stop.
> Questions: is the etymology of this word i
'instrument' plus 'uN
> 'use'?  Evidence for yes: the organic glottal
evidenced by the first
> person plural inflected forms, and the fact that
the first person plural
> goes in front of the verb if there is no w-.
Evidence for no: the first
> person singular prefix is -wa-, not -m-.
> Alternative: the /y/ is organic, and the verb
has nothing to do
> with 'use'. Evidence for: Buechel's consistent
transcription with /y/;
> evidence against: the first person plural forms
of the w- verb, where the
> y/' alternation occurs between different
morphemes, albeit in the same
> phonemic (not phonetic, not necessarily
phonological, but phonemic)
> environment (i_uN).  I think the apparent
uniqueness of the glide
> alternation here is also evidence against this.
Moreover, if the /y/ were
> part of the verb stem, then the correct first
person singular inflection
> (before the nasal vowel) should be either -m-
or -mn- replacing the /y/.
> Alternative: the verb stem is i'uN, but 'uN is
not the 'use' verb.
> There is a verb 'uN that inflects wa'uN,
uNk'uNpi, but it means 'live,
> exist', and I rule it out on semantic grounds.
So this theory would
> imply that there is a third -'uN root, perhaps
attested in only this
> verb (with the instrumental prefix, supposedly).
This accounts
> for everything, I think, except the phonetically
plausible y/'
> alternation.
> Question: what does anyone else think is the
phonological UR of
> this verb stem?  Is there etymological data that
might give us a clue?
>
> David
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:54:52 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:54:52 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.175452.0600.>

See below . . .

> You brought up something that I haven't thought
of yet
> -- explaining the structures I have via the
> detransitivizing function of *wa-*. But let's
see how
> this works in detail in my examples. In
>
> (1) thi-w-í-wa-'uN
>         house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>
> the starting point is the transitive verb
*i'u`N* 'to
> paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT.
*wa-*
> as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the
PAT.
> So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus
PAT,
> i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with
incorporated
> *thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in
(1)
> there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the
additional
> PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*?
In
> your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to
paint'
> minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1]
for PAT.
>
> But we can take it even further. My speaker also
gave
> me
>
> (2) w-í-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
>         'they ask around about him'
>
> and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The
base
> verb *iyúNg^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that,
after
> three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
we'd
> get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude
that
> rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-*
functions
> to add slots, at least in some cases.

OK, I think this is where your grammaticalization
theory comes in.  But, personally, my tendency is
just to look at it in terms of linguistic change.
Grammar change is primarily analogical in its
mechanics, which means that not all aspects of the
grammar are changed at once -- it operates
piecemeal and often lexeme-by-lexeme.  And it may
well be the case that you'll be forced to analyze
some instances of wa- as valence reduction and
some as adding slots.  Functionally, this would
mean the morpheme has split and you now have two
wa- prefixes where there was one before.  I
haven't tried to trace all the developments of the
(various??) WA- prefixes in Mississippi Valley
Siouan, although John's note immediately preceding
this one, does part of that job.  This is why I
say we have to be very careful about just how many
WA's we posit and have to pay close attention to
which occurs in what verb.  it sounds like a good
dissertation topic to me.  :-)

In any event, these are all very interesting
forms.  Several of the 'paint' forms have
interestingly strange Dhegiha analogs, and it will
be interesting to see how it all works out.  My
tendency is to TRY to analyze each instance of
/wa-/ in terms of valence reduction, following
Mary Haas's dictum "We mustn't translate the
(target) language into English and then analyze
the English".  I think paying attention to that
explains the house and the plates in the painting
sentences.  Beyond that, my Dakota fails me, and
I'm giving up for the evening.  :-)

Bob


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Thu Dec 11 01:56:19 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:56:19 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.195619.0600.>

My working hypothesis is that a noun (or NP) in
front of a verb in MVS can be one of at least
three things.  It can be the subject you're
talking about (whether agent or patient); it can
be a type of object of the verb; or it can be a
qualifier that acts as an adverb on that verb.
The /wa-/ is a generalizer that can fill any of
these noun slots with respect to the verb.  It's
roughly the equivalent of the everted palm ("Use
your imagination to fill in the blank!") in our
body language, in contrast with the pointing
thrust of definite reference.

Filling in for an object, it functions as a
detransitivizer.  So if ?i?uN means 'paint it',
and thi-?i?uN means 'paint the house', with 'house'
as the object, and wi?uN (< wa-?i?uN) means
'paint things in general', or just 'paint', then
/wa-/ is acting as a detransitivizer by taking
the place of the expected or implied object noun.

But if we have the construction thi-wi?uN, I
think there are three possibilities to explain
the apparent double object.

  1.  The verb ?i?uN might expect two separate
      objects, as John has suggested.

  2.  The verb wi?uN might have diverged
      semantically from ?i?uN, so that it no
      longer is equivalent to *wa-?i?uN.  In
      this case, wi?uN might be reinterpreted
      into a transitive verb, that can take
      thi, 'house', as an object.

  3.  The thi in thi-wi?uN is a qualifying noun,
      not an object (could I say "valence"?) noun.
      It gives circumstantial information about
      the verbal action, and is effectively an
      adverb.  Thus:

          ?i?uN           thi-?i?uN
          VERB            OBJ-VERB
          'paint it'      'paint the house'

          wi?uN           thi-wi?uN
          WA-VERB         ADV-WA-VERB
          'paint'         'house-paint'

      I think this is essentially Bob's view, and
      I like it too.

Now we hit Regina's example (5):

> (5) itówapi ki   hé  wa-w-í-wa-'uN
>     picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I am painting that picture with different colors'
>
> The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors'
> here.

This seems to present a problem for Possibility 3.
In third person:

      itowapi ki he wawi?uN
                 NP WA-WA-VERB
      'paint the picture with different colors'

The first WA would presumably represent a qualifier
that told the color of the painting action as in

> (6) sápa w-í-wa-'uN
>     black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint it black'

or

      sapa wi?uN
       ADV WA-VERB
      'paint it black'

Filling in for the color qualifier, WA seems to
take on the specialized sense of "in various colors",
rather than "in some unspecified color".  This makes
sense.  But what is that WA just before the verb doing,
in either (5) or (6)?  It certainly doesn't represent
a subject, and the 'color' qualifier is handled by
the preceeding WA or an actual color term.  The object
in (5) is clearly the leading noun phrase, 'picture'.
Either there is a second object floating around here
(Possibility 1); or the detransitivized verb wi?uN
has been reinterpreted as transitive (Possibility 2);
or that WA has become a marker like an affixed pronoun
that can optionally be augmented in meaning by a free
noun phrase.  In the latter case, it would be pretty
much the same as the 'us' and 'them' affixed pronouns
in OP.

I wonder what Regina's informants would say about:

      */sapa ?i?uN/

and

      */itowapi ki he wi?uN/

Does throwing out the extra WA potentially cause
confusion?

Rory


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 02:08:34 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:08:34 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312101608380.8071@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.180834.0800.>

> >In (1)   thi-w-�-wa-'uN
> >         house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >
> > the starting point is the transitive verb *i'u`N*
> 'to
> > paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT.
> *wa-*
> > as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the
> PAT.
> > So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus PAT,
> > i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with
> incorporated
> > *thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in (1)
> > there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the
> additional
> > PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*?
> In
> > your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to paint'
> > minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1] for
> PAT.
>
>
> Sorry -- I only see one WA- prefix here; the other
> one is the first person
> agent.
>

> Sorry -- I only see one WA- prefix here; the other
> one is the first person
> agent.

You're right, David -- I made a mistake here. The
example I actually meant to use here was (5) in my
first post. So how about this:

	it�wapi ki  h�   wa-w-�-wa-'uN
	picture the that WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
	'I am painting that picture with different
  colors'

How do we account for the *wa-*s in here?


> >
> > (2)	w-�-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> > 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
> >         'they ask around about him'
> >
> > and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> > verb *iy�Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that,
> after
> > three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
> we'd
> > get a valence of [-2] for PAT.
> >
> Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix
> this time.  iyunga is
> di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and
> wawiunga.  I don't know a
> verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for
> wiwawiyungapi.  The thing
> that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.

I agree. So we're left with a [-1] valence for PAT in
this case.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 11 05:19:59 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:19:59 -0700
Subject: Inflecting 'to paint'
In-Reply-To: <001201c3bf76$04316ce0$14b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.221959.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:
> Dakotan seems to have REapplied the instrumental /i-/ to derive an
> entirely new verb with the narrowed meaning 'to paint'.  But in Kaw the
> verb(s) 'to paint' seem all to be reflexive /íkkik?oN, ikkinoN/ 'paint'.
> Clearly, they are formed on the basis of */?oN/ 'do', and, equally
> clearly, one verb above has the expected glottal stop while the other
> has an epenthetic /-n-/, the expected correspondent to the Dakotan
> /-y-/.

I checked across Mississippi Valley and found the following:

IO ?uN'=hi 'to paint (house, wall)' JGT:195  (also iwa' or uwa')

Ex.  hga   ?uN=ha=    hne khe
     white I paint it FUT DEC
     I'll paint it white

     This is a causative.

OP   ...kki?aN' 'to paint one's face; to paint oneself'
     kki?aN=...khidhe 'to cause someone to paint themself'
     (coloring agent) i'...kki?aN 'to paint oneself with (coloring agent)'

     These are reflexives, one causative.  Dorsey gives ? here, but I
     didn't notice ? in comparable environments except when it came from
     *k? or *x?, which is probably not the case with this stem.

No anomalies in inflection noted.

Otherwise a variety of other stems seem to be listed instead, apparently
in the sense of 'to paint (color) on (thing)', especially with roots -ha
and -wa, whereas these usages seem to be 'to paint (thing) with (color)'.

I also checked in some Dakotan dictionaries other than Buechel, and found:

Riggs i'yuN 'to use', e.g., hu i'yuN 'to use one's legs, to be on foot',
T[eton] 'to rub on, apply'.  See iuN, which seeing I found iuN' 'to rub
on, as ointment or soap', inflected iwauN, uNkiuNpi.

Ingham gives wi'yuNpi 'paint, colour' (the noun), i'yuN/i'wayuN 'to
paint', thi wi'yuN wic^has^a 'house painter'.

It strikes me that the accentuation of i'yuN is irregular, and differs
from i'yuN to iuN'.

I am unable to say whether *(ir)uN ~ (i)?uN 'to paint (with)' involves a
different root from *(i)?uN 'to do (with)'.  They are clearly either
confused with each other or related to each other.  I do feel that the PS
phonological status of *? in the glottal stop-initial verbs may be
debatable, though it certainly sometimes becomes real enough.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 11 08:24:30 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:24:30 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031210225853.97654.qmail@web40004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.012430.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> But we can take it even further. My speaker also gave
> me
>
> (2)	w-í-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
>         'they ask around about him'
>
> and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> verb *iyúNg^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that, after
> three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations, we'd
> get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude that
> rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-* functions
> to add slots, at least in some cases.

The comparable and cognate verb in OP is i'waNghe 'to ask someone (a
question)'.  The -waN- can be -maN-, too, though that was historically
reserved for the first person.  The personal inflection of this stem is
quite irregular, at least in part because the OP materials attest parts of
an old irregular paradigm intermingled with a newer, "regularized" one.

Older           Newer

*i'maNghe       idha'maNghe
*i'naNghe       i'dhamaNghe (sometimes erroniously idha'maNghe)
 i'waNghe       i'maNghe

The starred forms aren't attested as such, but occur in more complex forms
and/or elsewhere in Dhegiha.

I apologize for that digression, but anyone who referred to the Dorsey
texts would have encountered that horrible complexity immediately!

The thing about this verb that I wanted to bring up is this.  The wa-forms
[sic] for i'waNghe (i'maNghe) are:  we'maNghe and wawe'maNghe.  These are
both glossed something like 'to question', and are used when there is not
some specific object preceding (always eda'daN or iNda'daN 'what', I
think) and the context doesn't seem to suggest a particular question.  If
there is any difference between the two, it seems to be that the latter
form is often glossed 'to ask (different) questions', i.e., with more
than one question fairly explicitly indicated.  I don't think we'maNghe is
ever glossed with multiple questions, though wawe'maNghe is sometimes
glossed with a single question or general questioning.

That's pretty close to the 'variety object' that Regina was asking about,
and, as I hope will be obvious to everyone, it seems to involve a second
occurrence of wa-:  wawe'maNghe < wa-wa-i-(m)aNghe.

Note that the wa or wa's here refer to the question, not the person
questioned.

I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and turned up:

wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they scorn various things about
people?)
     < i'xa 'to laugh at'

wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide [various things?] for people)
     < i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'

wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats people [in various ways?])
     < i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'

It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
reduplication.  However, all of these examples involve at least an
implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.

The following are probably not examples:

wawe's^i 'pay' (means of hiring)
     < wa...s^i' 'to hire, to employ, to send on errand'
u'wawes^i 'pay' (in which there is a means of hiring)
     < wa-u'-wa-wa-i-s^i)

Here the wa- in was^i' seems to be a part of the stem.  The u'- is from
*wa-u'-, rendering the second form complex, but OP is apparently only
marginally aware of the *wa- in u'-, since it provides a pleonastic -wa-
after it in some paradigmatic contexts.

wawe'dhit[t]aN=i 'he works at various things *for us*'
     < dhit[t}aN 'to work at various things'

Here I think wawe' < wa-wa-gi- INDEF-P12-DAT, and 'variou things' is
implicit in the stem, e.g., wabdhit[t]aN 'I worked at various things'.

I'm not sure what to make of the next one; I never have been!

wawe'naNghidha 'to attack (him, them)'
     < ie'naNghidhe 'to attack'

It seems reasonable to ask if there are wawa'- forms parallel with the
wawe'- ones, but the answer seems to be "No."  All the examples of wawa-
seem to be from verbs in wa-, like wa...khega 'be sick', wa...xpaniN 'be
poor', wa...kha 'to mean', wa...s^i 'to hire'.  In this respect the
presence of i- seems to be crucial to 'variety objects'.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Dec 11 15:01:58 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:01:58 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.090158.0600.>

It looks as though maybe some experimenting would
be possible with Omaha and Ponca with the support
of the 1890 Dorsey text collection.  So, how many
different WA- morphemes would you posit?  And what
are their different meanings/functions?

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koontz John E" <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: "Siouan List" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> > But we can take it even further. My speaker
also gave
> > me
> >
> > (2) w-í-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> > WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
> >         'they ask around about him'
> >
> > and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The
base
> > verb *iyúNg^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so
that, after
> > three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
we'd
> > get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude
that
> > rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-*
functions
> > to add slots, at least in some cases.
>
> The comparable and cognate verb in OP is
i'waNghe 'to ask someone (a
> question)'.  The -waN- can be -maN-, too, though
that was historically
> reserved for the first person.  The personal
inflection of this stem is
> quite irregular, at least in part because the OP
materials attest parts of
> an old irregular paradigm intermingled with a
newer, "regularized" one.
>
> Older           Newer
>
> *i'maNghe       idha'maNghe
> *i'naNghe       i'dhamaNghe (sometimes
erroniously idha'maNghe)
>  i'waNghe       i'maNghe
>
> The starred forms aren't attested as such, but
occur in more complex forms
> and/or elsewhere in Dhegiha.
>
> I apologize for that digression, but anyone who
referred to the Dorsey
> texts would have encountered that horrible
complexity immediately!
>
> The thing about this verb that I wanted to bring
up is this.  The wa-forms
> [sic] for i'waNghe (i'maNghe) are:  we'maNghe
and wawe'maNghe.  These are
> both glossed something like 'to question', and
are used when there is not
> some specific object preceding (always eda'daN
or iNda'daN 'what', I
> think) and the context doesn't seem to suggest a
particular question.  If
> there is any difference between the two, it
seems to be that the latter
> form is often glossed 'to ask (different)
questions', i.e., with more
> than one question fairly explicitly indicated.
I don't think we'maNghe is
> ever glossed with multiple questions, though
wawe'maNghe is sometimes
> glossed with a single question or general
questioning.
>
> That's pretty close to the 'variety object' that
Regina was asking about,
> and, as I hope will be obvious to everyone, it
seems to involve a second
> occurrence of wa-:  wawe'maNghe <
wa-wa-i-(m)aNghe.
>
> Note that the wa or wa's here refer to the
question, not the person
> questioned.
>
> I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and
turned up:
>
> wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they
scorn various things about
> people?)
>      < i'xa 'to laugh at'
>
> wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide
[various things?] for people)
>      < i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'
>
> wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats
people [in various ways?])
>      < i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'
>
> It seems particularly significant that two of
the three examples involve
> reduplication.  However, all of these examples
involve at least an
> implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in
Dhegiha.
>
> The following are probably not examples:
>
> wawe's^i 'pay' (means of hiring)
>      < wa...s^i' 'to hire, to employ, to send on
errand'
> u'wawes^i 'pay' (in which there is a means of
hiring)
>      < wa-u'-wa-wa-i-s^i)
>
> Here the wa- in was^i' seems to be a part of the
stem.  The u'- is from
> *wa-u'-, rendering the second form complex, but
OP is apparently only
> marginally aware of the *wa- in u'-, since it
provides a pleonastic -wa-
> after it in some paradigmatic contexts.
>
> wawe'dhit[t]aN=i 'he works at various things
*for us*'
>      < dhit[t}aN 'to work at various things'
>
> Here I think wawe' < wa-wa-gi- INDEF-P12-DAT,
and 'variou things' is
> implicit in the stem, e.g., wabdhit[t]aN 'I
worked at various things'.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of the next one; I
never have been!
>
> wawe'naNghidha 'to attack (him, them)'
>      < ie'naNghidhe 'to attack'
>
> It seems reasonable to ask if there are wawa'-
forms parallel with the
> wawe'- ones, but the answer seems to be "No."
All the examples of wawa-
> seem to be from verbs in wa-, like wa...khega
'be sick', wa...xpaniN 'be
> poor', wa...kha 'to mean', wa...s^i 'to hire'.
In this respect the
> presence of i- seems to be crucial to 'variety
objects'.
>
> JEK
>
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Thu Dec 11 17:33:11 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:33:11 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031211020834.73084.qmail@web40012.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.103311.0700.>

>
>
> > >
> > > (2)	w-�-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> > > 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
> > >         'they ask around about him'
> > >
> > > and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> > > verb *iy�Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that,
> > after
> > > three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
> > we'd
> > > get a valence of [-2] for PAT.

This one bothers me -- I'll have to think about it.

> > Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix
> > this time.  iyunga is
> > di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and
> > wawiunga.  I don't know a
> > verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for
> > wiwawiyungapi.  The thing
> > that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.
>
> I agree. So we're left with a [-1] valence for PAT in
> this case.



No, we're left with a zero valence.  The first wa deletes the 'my name'
slot from 'ask me my name'; the second wa deletes the 'me' slot from the
same verb; the third wa- deletes the 'about him' which is contributed by
the i- prefix.  As with Bob's theory, I think the result in Lakhota is
very hard to express in English, so the speaker has to add in objects that
are not actually referenced by the Lak. grammar.

But the 'paint the picture with many colors' example needs musing.

David


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 11 19:14:13 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:14:13 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <002f01c3bff7$cc1ebe20$02b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.121413.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:

> It looks as though maybe some experimenting would be possible with Omaha
> and Ponca with the support of the 1890 Dorsey text collection.  So, how
> many different WA- morphemes would you posit?  And what are their
> different meanings/functions?

Well, I still posit just two or three, depending on whether we distinguish
wa as an animate third person marker from wa as a "valence reduction
marker."  I definitely distinguish wa in wa ~ wa...a ~ awa P12, although I
concede that it might be historically connected, too.  And, of course, in
Dhegiha, the regular first person agent is a, not wa.

My logic in associating the first two wa's has been that, apart from an
occasional difference in accentuation, the two forms seem to be
morphosyntactically identical.  In other words, it's as if the plural
formation was a specialization of the detransitivized form, which is
certainly historically plausible.  Except maybe for these wawe- cases, and
maybe the wawa- cases I mentioned, too, the two wa's don't co-occur.
Naturally, since they're usually both object forms.  In the wawe- cases
I'm not positive that one of the wa's is a plural, because I think
wa-plural is generally animate.  In the wawa- cases the (first?) wa is
part of the stem, and is always present.  These are usually "experiencer"
subject verbs, though I don't think wa...s^i 'hire' is.  On the other
hand, given (1) the difference in accentuation, which might suggest that
there is sometimes a difference in length, and (2) the complex
interactions of wa with the locative u (which I've only hinted at), we
have at least some morphosyntactic differences.

So, let's say we have three wa's:  detransivizer, animate plural, and P12.
The one in which it is possible to do any subdivision is the
detransitivizer.  I think in a position-class approach you'd have to
distinguish the wa's in wawe and wawa, and you might want to distinguish
the the wa in deverbatives from statives, e.g., was^a(a)'be 'hunt chief's
standard' (dark thing).  These are all in some sense positionally or
functionally difference.

However, I think that instead of looking at Siouan morphology as a series
of ordered slots filled with slot-specific fillers, we have to look at it
as a series of ordered rules, with several paths through the rules, and
some multiple application of rules.  In that case these wa's all reduce to
"attach wa detransitivizer" even though the role that wa is filling
depends on the time at which the rule is applied.  For example, the
initial wa in wa...khega 'be sick', a non-dative experiencer verb (so it
looks stative in inflection) is a blocked reference to the body or the
part of it experiencing the sickness. (Though I am not positive you can't
include a noun referring to this body part in the sentence - will have to
check.)

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Dec 11 20:37:50 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:37:50 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.143750.0600.>

> But the 'paint the picture with many colors'
example needs musing.

My Dakotan muse has deserted me, but I'm reminded
of a sort of construction found in Slavic.
Russian doesn't have the same sorts of pronominal
arguments and/or valence markers, but it does have
special ways of distinguishing "I painted the
house" from "I painted here and there on the
house", and it does this with case selection.

"I painted the house" will have 'house' in the
accusative case.

"I painted about the house" or the like can have
'house' in the instrumental case if memory serves.

Or, "I threw the stone" -- 'stone' is accusative.

But "I tossed stones around" -- 'stones' is
instrumental.

Languages seem to have interesting special ways of
doing what we're calling "various ways" in
Dakotan.

Bob


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 20:48:06 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:48:06 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312111028180.25832@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.124806.0800.>


> > Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix
> > this time. iyunga is
> > di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and
> > wawiunga. I don't know a
> > verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for
> > wiwawiyungapi. The thing
> > that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.
>
> I agree. So we're left with a [-1] valence for PAT in
> this case.



No, we're left with a zero valence. The first wa deletes the 'my name'
slot from 'ask me my name'; the second wa deletes the 'me' slot from the
same verb; the third wa- deletes the 'about him' which is contributed by
the i- prefix. As with Bob's theory, I think the result in Lakhota is
very hard to express in English, so the speaker has to add in objects that
are not actually referenced by the Lak. grammar.


=====


This time I disagree. We forgot that one of the PAT slots in iyuNg^a is filled by a zero for �(about) him�, rather than by one of the wa-s. So what we get is, roughly,



�-             w-                         i-       wa-  w-   iyuNg^a-pi

about him-in various places-LOC-WA-WA-ask-        PL

�they ask about him in various places�



I�m actually not sure what entity or entities the third w- refers to. At any rate, if the base verb is i�iyuNg^a �to ask someone about something/someone in some place� (i.e. three PAT slots), then the �about something/someone� slot is taken by �- �about him�. So we have two PAT slots left, �someone� and �in some place�. But we have three wa-s. So the end result indeed is a [-1] valence for PAT.



Regina



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/563039de/attachment.html>

From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 21:22:13 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:13 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <002a01c3c027$507f3f80$26b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.132213.0800.>

Such case marking splits can be found in many languages, and one way of accounting for the particular type of split you quote from Russian is by means of the semantic parameter of affectedness of the object. More examples can be found in Hopper & Thompson's (1980) Language paper. But judging by the way affectedness of O is described in the literature, I'm not exactly sure if this characterizes the Lakota situation. So according to "affectedness theory", the standard transitive object case (mostly ACC) denotes action that has a quite thorough impact on the O, while the oblique (often INSTRumental) indicates a partial impact. My impression from working with Lakota, however, is that "variety wa-" actually emphasizes the notion of internal diversity in  the object, rather than less effective, less thorough, less completive action.

Regina

"R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:

> But the 'paint the picture with many colors'
example needs musing.

My Dakotan muse has deserted me, but I'm reminded
of a sort of construction found in Slavic.
Russian doesn't have the same sorts of pronominal
arguments and/or valence markers, but it does have
special ways of distinguishing "I painted the
house" from "I painted here and there on the
house", and it does this with case selection.

"I painted the house" will have 'house' in the
accusative case.

"I painted about the house" or the like can have
'house' in the instrumental case if memory serves.

Or, "I threw the stone" -- 'stone' is accusative.

But "I tossed stones around" -- 'stones' is
instrumental.

Languages seem to have interesting special ways of
doing what we're calling "various ways" in
Dakotan.

Bob



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/97fee812/attachment.html>

From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Thu Dec 11 21:26:50 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:26:50 -0700
Subject: Lakhota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.142650.0700.>

I you said thought the translation of wiwawiyungapi was 'they ask around
about him'. I think the "about him" is coming from the new i- prefix, and
the initial wa- detransitivies that.  I realize that the English
translation still has the "about him" in it, which is what prompted my
cryptic comment about English not having the options Lakhota has for
expressing participants that aren't arguments (Bob's point about 'house'
not being an argument in thi-wi'unpi.).  The doubly de-transitrivized
wawiyunge can be rendered by "they're asking around" -- no patients -- but
there's no way to express, in English, an additional argument that isn't
an argument.  So I don't think your example is right; I don't think there
is an X for 'about him' here; the first "wi" is 'about him', only the
"him" doesn't have argument status.  I don't think there is a zero in
addition to the three wa's. Instrumental i- often means 'because of' or
'about'.

David
X-             w-                         i-       wa-  w-   iyuNg^a-pi
  about him-in various places-LOC-WA-WA-ask-        PL

  they ask about him in various places



  Im actually not sure what entity or entities the third w- refers to. At
any rate, if the base verb is iiyuNg^a to ask someone about
something/someone in some place (i.e. three PAT slots), then the about
something/someone slot is taken by X- about him. So we have two PAT slots
left, someone and in some place. But we have three wa-s. So the end
result indeed is a [-1] valence for PAT.



  Regina



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C3BFF3.D7A181F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<DEFANGED_META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<DEFANGED_META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D061491221-11122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
thought the translation of wiwawiyungapi was 'they ask around about =
him'.&nbsp;=20
I think the "about him" is coming from the new i- prefix, and the =
initial wa-=20
detransitivies that.&nbsp; I realize that the English translation still =
has the=20
"about him" in it, which is what prompted my cryptic comment about =
English not=20
having the options Lakhota has for expressing participants that aren't =
arguments=20
(Bob's point about 'house' not being an argument in thi-wi'unpi.).&nbsp; =
The=20
doubly de-transitrivized wawiyunge can be rendered by "they're asking =
around" --=20
no patients -- but there's no way to express, in English, an additional =
argument=20
that isn't an argument.&nbsp; So I don't think your example is right; I =
don't=20
think there is an X for 'about him' here; the first "wi" is 'about him', =
only=20
the "him" doesn't have argument status.&nbsp; I don't think there is a =
zero in=20
addition to the three wa's. Instrumental i- often means 'because of' or=20
'about'.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D061491221-11122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D061491221-11122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>David</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>X-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;=20
</SPAN>w-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
</SPAN><SPAN DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN>i-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</SPAN>wa-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>w-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>iyuNg^a-pi</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dreplbq=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid">
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>about him-in various places-LOC-WA-WA-ask-<SPAN=20
  style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =

  </SPAN>PL</FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>=11they ask about him in various places=12</FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
size=3D3><FONT=20
  face=3D"Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>I=12m actually not sure what entity or entities the third w- =
refers to.=20
  At any rate, if the base verb is i=12iyuNg^a =11to ask someone about=20
  something/someone in some place=12 (i.e. three PAT slots), then the =
=11about=20
  something/someone=12 slot is taken by X- =11about him=12. So we have =
two PAT slots=20
  left, =11someone=12 and =11in some place=12. But we have three wa-s. =
So the end result=20
  indeed is a [-1] valence for PAT.</FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
size=3D3><FONT=20
  face=3D"Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>Regina</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D21260/*http://p=
hotos.yahoo.com">New=20
Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing</A></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C3BFF3.D7A181F0--


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 22:16:14 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:14 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312102304050.1241@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.141614.0800.>




I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and turned up:

wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they scorn various things about
people?)
< i'xa 'to laugh at'

wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide [various things?] for people)
< i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'

wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats people [in various ways?])
< i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'

It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
reduplication. However, all of these examples involve at least an
implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.
======
That's interesting because in Lakota, wa- seems to have inanimate reference only. So OP wa- seems to have developed differently, semantically speaking, than Lakota wa-. (Which of course leaves the chicken-and-egg question open).

Regina



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/96c9f81d/attachment.html>

From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net  Fri Dec 12 02:06:32 2003
From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:06:32 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031211221614.29855.qmail@web40008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.200632.0600.>

These would lend themselves to the following glosses:

they laugh at folks and laugh at folks
they decide-for-others things and decide-for-others things
he cheats folks and cheats folks

or the equivalent expressions in English with "around".  Neither type of
gloss is completely adequate.

where one wa is the "things" or "folks" valence reducer;
 and
the other wa multiplies the instances of the action

Carolyn



  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of REGINA PUSTET
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 4:16 PM
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
  Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'





    I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and turned up:

    wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they scorn various things about
    people?)
    < i'xa 'to laugh at'

    wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide [various things?] for people)
    < i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'

    wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats people [in various ways?])
    < i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'

    It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
    reduplication. However, all of these examples involve at least an
    implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.
    ======

    That's interesting because in Lakota, wa- seems to have inanimate
reference only. So OP wa- seems to have developed differently, semantically
speaking, than Lakota wa-. (Which of course leaves the chicken-and-egg
question open).

    Regina


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Do you Yahoo!?
  New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/e3e8f810/attachment.html>

From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net  Fri Dec 12 02:05:24 2003
From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:05:24 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031211212213.38356.qmail@web40016.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.200524.0600.>

I think the use of *extra* wa in Osage adds the sense of 'around' as in 'ask
around' and 'paint around on things'  or some such and alludes to repeating
the action.  So maybe 'asking and asking', or 'painting and painting'.  I
don't have the example at hand but seem to remember 'to see things' (over a
period of time on different occasions) being wawedhe, with two instances of
wa:
wa wa iidhe, with iidhe 'see'.  The gloss would be something like 'he's been
seeing things'.  One wa is the valence reducer "things" and one is a sort of
multiplier of instances of the verb, as I see it.

In the house-painting example and the picture-paining example with "extra"
wa, do the speakers conceive of the action happening in several instances?
Is the actor sort of painting around on the house or the picture at
different settings (though not necessarily with the informality implied in
English by "painting around") ?

Carolyn
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of REGINA PUSTET
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:22 PM
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
  Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


  Such case marking splits can be found in many languages, and one way of
accounting for the particular type of split you quote from Russian is by
means of the semantic parameter of affectedness of the object. More examples
can be found in Hopper & Thompson's (1980) Language paper. But judging by
the way affectedness of O is described in the literature, I'm not exactly
sure if this characterizes the Lakota situation. So according to
"affectedness theory", the standard transitive object case (mostly ACC)
denotes action that has a quite thorough impact on the O, while the oblique
(often INSTRumental) indicates a partial impact. My impression from working
with Lakota, however, is that "variety wa-" actually emphasizes the notion
of internal diversity in  the object, rather than less effective, less
thorough, less completive action.

  Regina

  "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:

    > But the 'paint the picture with many colors'
    example needs musing.

    My Dakotan muse has deserted me, but I'm reminded
    of a sort of construction found in Slavic.
    Russian doesn't have the same sorts of pronominal
    arguments and/or valence markers, but it does have
    special ways of distinguishing "I painted the
    house" from "I painted here and there on the
    house", and it does this with case selection.

    "I painted the house" will have 'house' in the
    accusative case.

    "I painted about the house" or the like can have
    'house' in the instrumental case if memory serves.

    Or, "I threw the stone" -- 'stone' is accusative.

    But "I tossed stones around" -- 'stones' is
    instrumental.

    Languages seem to have interesting special ways of
    doing what we're calling "various ways" in
    Dakotan.

    Bob




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
    New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/245865bb/attachment.html>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 05:10:57 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:10:57 -0700
Subject: Obj.3p.an. and 'person' (Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object')
In-Reply-To: <20031211221614.29855.qmail@web40008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.221057.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
> reduplication. However, all of these examples involve at least an
> implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.
> ======
> That's interesting because in Lakota, wa- seems to have inanimate
> reference only. So OP wa- seems to have developed differently,
> semantically speaking, than Lakota wa-. (Which of course leaves the
> chicken-and-egg question open).

Bob mentioned this in passing in an earlier part of this thread.
Mississippi Valley is the only branch of Siouan that has special third
person animate object markers.  Within this, Dakotan has wic^ha- in this
function, apparently a cut down variant of the noun that appears as
wic^ha's^a or wic^ha'sta in the various dialects of Dakotan.  But Dhegiha,
Ioway-Otoe, and Winnebago all have a prefix wa- in this capacity.  This is
usually assumed to be a specialization of the detransitivizer wa-, but it
might also be a cut down version of a some noun - considering the number
of nouns and nominalizations that start with wa-.

Your chicken or egg comment is quite apt here in several senses.  We might
wonder which use of wa- comes first, for example, which I assume is your
implication.  I tend to suspect the detransitivizer, because it is more
widespread in Siouan, but that kind of a distributional argument is not
especially strong.  I don't know what the crosslinguistic evidence is for
directionality in indefinite <=> third plural development.  We do have
third plural => indefinite in English constructions like indefinite they -
e.g., "they never learn."  But I seem to recall reverse developments in
Chukchi paradigms, with passives or antipassives serving as third person
forms.

On the other hand, we could also wonder whether wic^ha- and wa- are
independent developments in this capacity, and, if not, which came first.
One might hypothesize that PMV had *wa- in this capacity and that the
incorporated noun(s) wic^ha'S(ta) replaced this *wa- in Dakotan.  In any
terms, wic^ha- is a sort of vicar (in the ecological sense) of wa- in
Dakotan.

Here it may be useful to know that the 'person' nouns in MV are not
especially similar looking and are certainly not regularly correspondent.
In Dhegiha, 'person' is generally like OP nikka(s^iNga).  This would match
something like Dakotan (?) nic^ha(s^iNc^a) < PS (?) *riNhka(s^iNka) or
maybe (?) lic^ha(c^hiNc^a) < PS (?) *Rihka(yiNka), or you can mix and
match the two parts.  Now (?) nic^ha or (?) lic^ha are somewhat
reminiscent of wic^ha-, but they are nowhere near right on the mark, so
that my inclination is to see nikka and wic^ha- as unrelated.

The closest thing to wic^ha's^a in Dhegiha is actually waz^a'z^e 'Osage'
(a clan name found in most of the Dhegiha groups).  Dakotan wic^ha's^a
suggests PS *wihkas^- or *wiyas^-, while Dhegiha waz^a'z^e suggests PS
*was^as^- or *wayas^.  The second consonant in both cases is ambiguous as
to antecedant.  We're still uncertain about voicing of fricatives, and the
a:e final vowel alternation is standard for "consonant-final" stems in
Dakotan vs. Dhegiha (and Ioway-Otoe).  So it is really only the first
syllable vowel that's perhaps different, if we assume *wiyas^- and
*wayas^- as the hypthetical sources.  That's a much closer match than we
get with Dakotan wic^ha- and Dhegiha nikka.

I tend to think that Dhegiha waz^a'z^e 'Osage' is related to *(i)yas^-
'name', cf. Da c^haz^e' and OP iz^a'z^e.  So Dhegiha 'Osage' and perhaps
Dakotan 'person' might originally been a trope on the order of
'name-bearers'.

It's true that Dakotan has a band name waz^a'z^a which is an even better
match with Dhegiha waz^a'z^e, but this is rather too good a match.  I
suspect this is actually a loan from Dhegiha - perhaps the name came along
with some originally Dhegiha-speaking waz^a'z^e clansfolk.  If waz^a'z^a
were inherited, it would support the PS *was^as^- hypothesis.  But
pretonic z^ is unusual, except in Dhegiha as a reflex of *y, and the
Winnebago form of 'Osage' is waras^, which, if inherited, is from PS
*waras^- or *wayas^-, which (weakly) supports the PS *wayas^- hypothesis.
So the easiest way to get a nice non-canonical match for Dhegiha waz^a'z^e
like Dakotan waz^a'z^a is to borrow it.

I don't mean to suggest that the ethnoym 'Osage' is inherited, of course,
but only that the Winnebago form may be a valid calque, an etymologically
correct match, for waz^a'ze, while waz^a'z^a is a phonologically slightly
adapted (-e > -a) borrowing.  Of course, the Winnebago calque could be
based on a false folk etymology of what waz^a'z^e means (cf. Wi raa's^
'name'), and so irrelevant.  That's a decision folks will have to make for
themselves. (Now there's an indefinite from a plural.)

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 05:21:18 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:21:18 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOIEGDCHAA.cqcqcq1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.222118.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Carolyn Q. wrote:
> where one wa is the "things" or "folks" valence reducer;
>  and
> the other wa multiplies the instances of the action

I'd concede that the instance multiplier wa- - the variety object wa- in
Regina's terminology - would definitely be a fourth sort of wa- - even in
a non-position class approach to Siouan morphology.  I haven't quite given
up on the extra wa- plugging into some case role, though I admit I aven't
a clue what!


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 05:25:09 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:25:09 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOGEGDCHAA.cqcqcq1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.222509.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Carolyn Q. wrote:
> I think the use of *extra* wa in Osage adds the sense of 'around' as in
> 'ask around' and 'paint around on things' or some such and alludes to
> repeating the action.  So maybe 'asking and asking', or 'painting and
> painting'.  I don't have the example at hand but seem to remember 'to
> see things' (over a period of time on different occasions) being
> wawedhe, with two instances of wa: wa wa iidhe, with iidhe 'see'.  The
> gloss would be something like 'he's been seeing things'.  One wa is the
> valence reducer "things" and one is a sort of multiplier of instances of
> the verb, as I see it.

Interesting that again the verb (iidhe) is an i-locative.  And I assume
that 'ask around' would be a cognate of i-locative wawe'maNghe in OP.  I
take it that there's something special about the grammar of i- here, and
not merely its phonology.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 06:57:25 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:57:25 -0700
Subject: wa- in Experienver Verns (Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object')
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312111116570.25335@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.235725.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote:
> ...  For example, the initial wa in wa...khega 'be sick', a non-dative
> experiencer verb (so it looks stative in inflection) is a blocked
> reference to the body or the part of it experiencing the sickness.
> (Though I am not positive you can't include a noun referring to this
> body part in the sentence - will have to check.)

It does appear that wa...khega never takes an argument for the part of the
body that hurts or the manner of the sickness, at least not in the OP
texts.  I think this is the argument that wa- precludes.  The person
experiencing the sickness is expressed with patient markers in the verb.

OP:

P1 aNwakhega
P2 wadhikhega
P3 wakhega
P12 wawakhega

One reason I am fairly certain that wa- precludes the locus of the
sickness is that the Osage equivalent verb is in LaFlesche as ...hu'hega,
also using patient markers for the sick person.  At least in the first
person and inclusive.  The second person has agent form.  The verb is
reformulated as prefixing, and the root hega suggests that OP -khega is
dative (*k-hega), but hu, which replaces wa-, certainly looks like hu
'leg; stalk, stem' (OP has hi, mostly in the latter sense).

Osage:

P1 aNhuheka
P2 dhahuheka
P3 huheka
P12 wahuheka

One way to get around not having an argument slot is to add an additional
clause, loosely attached.

jod 1891:45.3/4

kki dhe'=dhiNkhe iga'xdhaN=dhiNkhe we'dadhe=           d=egaN wakhega:
and this the     his wife  the     she has given birth having she is sick

i'=the wami'    xtaN= naN=i
mouth the blood drops usually

And his wife, who has given birth, is sick:  she keeps spitting up blood.

You can add an inalienable possessor argument wrt the sick person by
making a dative verb:

jod 1891:100.8

s^iNgaz^iNga iN'wakhega  (instead of aNwakhega)
child        is sick to me

My child is sick.


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 13 16:33:23 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:33:23 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOGEGDCHAA.cqcqcq1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.13.DEC.2003.083323.0800.>

> I think the use of *extra* wa in Osage adds the
> sense of 'around' as in 'ask
> around' and 'paint around on things'  or some such
> and alludes to repeating
> the action.

>
> In the house-painting example and the
> picture-paining example with "extra"
> wa, do the speakers conceive of the action happening
> in several instances?
> Is the actor sort of painting around on the house or
> the picture at
> different settings (though not necessarily with the
> informality implied in
> English by "painting around") ?
>
For now, I'd say that Lakota wa- doesn't normally have
this connotation, judging by the examples I have, but
I'll double-check on this with my speaker next week.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Dec 14 02:42:15 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:42:15 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312101354270.21423@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.13.DEC.2003.194215.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote:

In thinking about the 'variety wa', I've come up with some questions.

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> > (1) thi-w-í-wa-'uN
> >     house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint the house in many places'
> >
> > (2) thi-'í-wa-'uN
> >     house-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint the house'

Can one add a color to either of these sentences?  If the w(a)- before i
does refer to the color painted with or the place painted, in short to the
paint application, then one would assume that only (2) can take a color
argument.

> > Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:
> >
> > (5) itówapi ki   hé  wa-w-í-wa-'uN
> >     picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I am painting that picture with different colors'
> >
> > The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors'
> > here.

I'd still make this two extra wa's, albeit one of them is the 'variety
wa-' and so now accounted for.  But if 'color' is separate from the issue
of 'variety wa-' then perhaps the additiona wa- is the color argument or
the indication of the omission of it.

> > This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:
> >
> > (6) sápa w-í-wa-'uN
> >     black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint it black'
> >
> > (7) *sápa wa-w-í-wa-'uN
> >     black   WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint it black'
> >
> > The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-*
> > and the color term *sápa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.

These last two examples show that it doesn't matter which wa- refers to
the color, i.e., in (1) it is the inner wa- that refers to multiple colors
and/or places, but in (6) that seems to refer to the thing painted on.

By contrast, in the Omaha-Ponca examples cited, the first or inner wa-
seems to refer to the indefinite object, e.g., an unspecified question in
we'maNghe' 'to ask an unspecified question; to questin', vs. i'maNghe
where the question is specific, while the second or outer wa- seems to
indicate multiplicity of the questions, e.g., in wawe'maNghe 'to ask
(different, several, various) questions' or, perhaps, 'to interrogate'.

Looking, Buechel lists forms like iyuN'gha 'to inquire of one, ask one a
question', wai'yuNgha 'to inquire', wi'yuNgha 'to ask questions or
inquire', wawi'yuNgha 'to inquire, ask questions', so I expect this
pattern can be investigated in Dakotan, too.

I can point to a possible additional 'variety (or multiplicity) wa-' in
Dakota.  Bruce Ingham's new Lakota grammar has a section on circumstantial
stems.  For example, for the circumstantial stem -khetu ~ -khel
'occurrence', he gives lists a non-specific verbal form tokhetu 'happen
somehow' (with a T-demonstrative), specific verbal form hec^hetu 'happen
thus' (with some other demonstrative), and a relational verb form
iyetc^hetu 'happen like ...' (with i + the e-demonstrative).  This
particular stem lacks adverbial or subordinate forms in khel, or perhaps
they are indistinguishable from those of the circumstantial stem -khec^a ~
-khel 'quality, occurrence of problem'.

There are a fairly large number of these circumstantial stems in Dakotan
(and other Siouan languages), and the prefixation of demonstratives and i
+ the e-demonstrative (relational circumstantial stem) does not exhaust
their morphology.  In particular, (p. 68) it is possible to prefix a wa-,
"an indefinite specific prefix which with verbs has the function of
increasing the valence [i.e, of recognizing it?  JEK] (see 4.5 above) and
with some circumstantial stems gives a more general or undefined meaning
as in wa-iyehaNl 'at about the time of' and wa-tohaNyaN 'for some time'."

===

I've just now also stumbled on this remark, p. 54, in Boas & Deloria:

"Transitive verbs may employ a double wa, one being direct, the other
indirect object:  waho'kuNk?iya 'he advises him', wawa'hokuNk?iya 'he
adsvises people about things', ignu' 'he mentions it to him', wi'gnu 'he
mentions (unkind) things to him', wawi'gnu 'he mentions (unkind) things to
people', ...

"It appears from these examples that the double wa ins the most
generalized term.  It is not always possible to trace the exact meaning of
the two objects. ..."

JEK


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 14 21:52:45 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:52:45 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312131753160.21760@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.DEC.2003.135245.0800.>

> > > (1) thi-w-�-wa-'uN
> > >     house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> > >     'I paint the house in many places'
> > >
> > > (2) thi-'�-wa-'uN
> > >     house-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> > >     'I paint the house'
>
> Can one add a color to either of these sentences?
> If the w(a)- before i
> does refer to the color painted with or the place
> painted, in short to the
> paint application, then one would assume that only
> (2) can take a color
> argument.

I'm still experimenting. A new hypothesis has just
formed in my mind regarding these troublesome multiple
wa-s, but I need more data to substantiate it. Plus,
I'll bring your question up in the next Lakota
session.

> By contrast, in the Omaha-Ponca examples cited, the
> first or inner wa-
> seems to refer to the indefinite object, e.g., an
> unspecified question in
> we'maNghe' 'to ask an unspecified question; to
> questin', vs. i'maNghe
> where the question is specific, while the second or
> outer wa- seems to
> indicate multiplicity of the questions, e.g., in
> wawe'maNghe 'to ask
> (different, several, various) questions' or,
> perhaps, 'to interrogate'.
>

This is a great example for a variety object reading.


> I've just now also stumbled on this remark, p. 54,
> in Boas & Deloria:
>
> "Transitive verbs may employ a double wa, one being
> direct, the other
> indirect object:  waho'kuNk?iya 'he advises him',
> wawa'hokuNk?iya 'he
> adsvises people about things', ignu' 'he mentions it
> to him', wi'gnu 'he
> mentions (unkind) things to him', wawi'gnu 'he
> mentions (unkind) things to
> people', ...
>
> "It appears from these examples that the double wa
> ins the most
> generalized term.  It is not always possible to
> trace the exact meaning of
> the two objects. ..."

This is exactly the impression that I get from working
on this. And it bothers me. I'm working on a cure ...
more on Tuesday, at the latest.

Regina



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From kdshea at ku.edu  Mon Dec 15 05:02:07 2003
From: kdshea at ku.edu (Kathleen Shea)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:02:07 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <SUN.14.DEC.2003.230207.0600.>

I hadn't checked my e-mail for a few days, and, when I did, I found about 40 messages on the Siouan list involving a very interesting discussion of wa-.  However, the original message on this topic, from Regina, came out unreadable on my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have this problem?  I would very much like to read her comments, which started off the whole discussion.  I haven't found her comments preserved in full in any of the subsequent messages, but I've only as yet skimmed through them.  Perhaps someone wouldn't mind forwarding them to me.  Thanks.

Kathy Shea
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: REGINA PUSTET 
  To: SIOUAN at lists.colorado.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:43 PM
  Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Dear Siouanists,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>It all started with some innocent work on noun incorporation in Lakota. In this context, my Lakota speaker came up with forms such as</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(1)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>thi-w-í-wa-'uN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(both components of the verb i'úN 'to paint' (also pronounced iyúN) are glossed by 'paint')</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>'I paint the house'</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>This example contrasts with</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(2)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>thi-'í-wa-'uN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>house-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>'I paint the house'</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The structural difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) contains the non-specific patient marker *w-*, whose full form is *wa-*. But there is also a subtle semantic difference between the two examples: according to my Lakota speaker, (1) actually means 'I paint the house in many areas', while (2) simply means 'I paint the house'. Syntactically, the remarkable thing about (1) is that this example admits two affixal objects: *thi-* 'house' and *w-* 'non-specific object'. But what puzzled me the most was the translation of *w-* by 'in many areas'. We get more of this in (3) and (4):</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">(3)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>waks^í-w-i'uN<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>plate-WA-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'to paint different kinds of plates'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(4)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>waks^í-'i'uN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>plate-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'to paint plates', *'to paint different kinds of plates'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(5)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>itówapi ki<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>hé<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>wa-w-í-wa-'uN</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>picture<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>the that<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I am painting that picture with different colors'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors' here. This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(6)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>sápa w-í-wa-'uN</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>black<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I paint it black'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>ungrammatical:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(7)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>sápa wa-w-í-wa-'uN</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>black<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I paint it black'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-* and the color term *sápa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Unfortunately, so far, I was unable to identify the exact extra-linguistic referent of *w-* in (5) and (6).</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Still, all this seems to imply that in the case of examples (1), (3) and (5), *wa-* has a semantic connotation that could be rendered by the gloss 'variety object', rather than simply by 'things, stuff, etc.' as is usually done for *wa-* (which is of course appropriate in most other cases). The following examples should bring this out even more clearly:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(8)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>wa-yúha</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-have</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'he has all kinds of things'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(9)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>wó-ha </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA+YU-have</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'he has things/everything (like a rich person)'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The form *wó-* in (6) results from contraction of *wa-* with the instrumental prefix *yu-*. *wó-* conveys the meaning of "regular" non-specific patient, while *wayú-* seems to indicate a variety object. Not every verb that starts with *yu-*, however, admits the two contrasting expression formats for *wa-* that we see in (8) and (9): For *yu'échetu* 'to make it right', there is only *wayú'echetu*, but not *wó'echetu*. So far, all tested yu-verbs that do not have alternating *wa-*- forms have a *wayú-*-form but not a *wó-*-form, with one exception: *yúta* 'to eat'. *wóta* is fine but *wayúta* is not grammatical. Plus, not in every case in which there are alternating *wa-*-forms, corresponding meaning distinctions could be elicited.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>A further argument for keeping *wó-* and *wayú-* forms apart, not only semantically, can be derived from the fact that for 1<SUP>st</SUP> and 2<SUP>nd</SUP> person, *wó-* and *wayú-* forms inflect differently:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(10)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>wa-blús^taN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-1SG.AG.finish</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I finish a lot of things'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">(11)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>wó-wa-s^taN<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA+YU-1SG.AG-finish</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I am done'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The two main questions which are implicit in these data are:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(a) Does a distinction between a marker for "plain" non-specific object vs. a similar or identical marker for variety object surface in other Siouan languages as well? What are the exact semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in other Siouan languages? Are there Siouan languages in which the etymological equivalent of Lakota *wa-* functions to code the notion of variety object only?</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(b) On the assumption that the two meanings of Lakota *wa-* ("plain" non-specific object vs. 'variety object') are historically connected, which meaning is older? Grammaticalization theory, via the concept of semantic bleaching, would predict that the meaning 'variety object' is older than the meaning 'non-specific object' since it can be argued that the former meaning is less abstract than the latter. But generally, I don't care much for deductive reasoning of this sort, I'd rather draw my conclusions on the basis of data from related languages. That's why I'd like to see some "cross-Siouan" data on this.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Best,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Regina</FONT></P></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21260/*http://photos.yahoo.com">New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031214/53f1d890/attachment.html>

From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Dec 15 14:38:39 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:38:39 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.083839.0600.>

I had the same problem with Regina's original
message, but when I set about replying to it to
get a clear repeat, it was perfectly readable in
the "reply" window.  Go figure.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathleen Shea" <kdshea at KU.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


I hadn't checked my e-mail for a few days, and,
when I did, I found about 40 messages on the
Siouan list involving a very interesting
discussion of wa-.  However, the original message
on this topic, from Regina, came out unreadable on
my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have
this problem?  I would very much like to read her
comments, which started off the whole discussion.
I haven't found her comments preserved in full in
any of the subsequent messages, but I've only as
yet skimmed through them.  Perhaps someone
wouldn't mind forwarding them to me.  Thanks.

Kathy Shea


From kdshea at ku.edu  Mon Dec 15 17:26:47 2003
From: kdshea at ku.edu (Kathleen Shea)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:47 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.112647.0600.>

As you can see from my last posting on the list, my reply didn't produce a
clear copy of Regina's original message, but, since then, Rory Larson and
Justin McBride have both sent me clear copies.  Thanks!

Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at KU.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


> I had the same problem with Regina's original
> message, but when I set about replying to it to
> get a clear repeat, it was perfectly readable in
> the "reply" window.  Go figure.
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kathleen Shea" <kdshea at KU.EDU>
> To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
>
>
> I hadn't checked my e-mail for a few days, and,
> when I did, I found about 40 messages on the
> Siouan list involving a very interesting
> discussion of wa-.  However, the original message
> on this topic, from Regina, came out unreadable on
> my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have
> this problem?  I would very much like to read her
> comments, which started off the whole discussion.
> I haven't found her comments preserved in full in
> any of the subsequent messages, but I've only as
> yet skimmed through them.  Perhaps someone
> wouldn't mind forwarding them to me.  Thanks.
>
> Kathy Shea
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Dec 15 18:45:56 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:56 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <009301c3c2c8$97e634c0$4909ed81@9afl3>
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.114556.0700.>

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Kathleen Shea wrote:
> However, the original message on this topic, from Regina, came out
> unreadable on my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have this
> problem?

I believe the original letter used some HTML-based formatting.  This looks
nice if the receiving mailer is capable of handling it, and can look like
gibberish if not, so I still recommend against it for communications with
the list, even though more and more mailers support it.  I don't know any
way to prevent this, or keep people reminded of it.  Perhaps it can be
filtered out in the list mechanisms.  I'll look into it.

In fact, I use pine in a terminal window myself, which is pretty
old-fashioned, but newer versions of pine have gotten pretty good at
filtering out html, so I glazed past the "index of attachments" at the top
of Regina's letter without even noticing it, and the letter was readable
in pine.  Quotation marks in some of the subsequent communications came
out pretty wild at times, but I assumed this came from using a European
character set, presumably a necessity of life if you are German.  I
suspect I could fix this in pine, if I were smart enough ...

Sooner or later I will be forced to switch to the University's webmail, I
suspect, as the ancient Sun Unix terminal server I use is on its last
legs, and from time to time the University sends out ominous announcements
about the desirability of conversion.  I've been avoiding web mailers
since I was first forcibly converted to the Hotmail web mailer by MSN.
Under its fat-crayon graphics this is a feature-less piece of garbage
basically best suited to sending sequences of messages on the order of "Ya
me 2.  How R U. :-)."  You can even save several of them in the one saved
messages folder they allow you - I mean U.  You can't download the
messages to your own system.  No wonder the service is free.  It's
worthless.  The main purpose of Hotmail seems to be to keep you from using
Outlook Express and thereby falling afoul of its security holes.


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Dec 15 22:06:53 2003
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:06:53 -0800
Subject: Mailers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312151112210.15156@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.140653.0800.>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E
>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:46 AM
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
>
>Sooner or later I will be forced to switch to the University's webmail, I
>suspect, as the ancient Sun Unix terminal server I use is on its last
>legs, and from time to time the University sends out ominous announcements
>about the desirability of conversion.  I've been avoiding web mailers
>since I was first forcibly converted to the Hotmail web mailer by MSN.
>Under its fat-crayon graphics this is a feature-less piece of garbage
>basically best suited to sending sequences of messages on the order of "Ya
>me 2.  How R U. :-)."  You can even save several of them in the one saved
>messages folder they allow you - I mean U.  You can't download the
>messages to your own system.  No wonder the service is free.  It's
>worthless.  The main purpose of Hotmail seems to be to keep you from using
>Outlook Express and thereby falling afoul of its security holes.

Even if you give up Pine, you should be able to download your mail into
something useful like Eudora and avoid the pain of webmail. I use Outlook
(not Express) and haven't had any virus issues - though I'm smart about
attachments, even if there're from someone I know, I won't open them unless
I get a personal message too - and I quite like it.

Hotmail can actually be downloaded into Outlook Express thereby causing you
to have all the security issues and all the downloaded spam and viruses all
in one nice place. Again, if you're smart about it, OE for Hotmail is still
better than webmail.

I really really hate webmail. Can you tell? ;)

Shannon


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 16 19:17:40 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:17:40 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312151112210.15156@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.DEC.2003.111740.0800.>


(Regarding the difficulties with the format of some of my previous messages, I'm working with Yahoo, and I'm not sure if there is a way of getting around html format with Yahoo. I'm now trying to convert my message into txt format -- please let me know if this looks nicer.)



Here's some more data on Lakota wa-. This time, I'm mainly interested in constructions with multiple wa-, but I'm afraid that the following data complicate, rather than clarify, the situation. Using iyuNg^a 'to ask' for the purpose of demonstration, in Lakota, this verb may take three (seemingly direct) objects:



(1)        John itowapi ki taku ota iyuNg^a-pi

            John  picture the things many ask-PL

            'they ask John many things about the picture'



(2)        John iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask John'



(3)        taku ota iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask him many things'



(4)        itowapi ki iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask him about the picture'



although there is a tendency to mark the 'about' phrase explicitly by means of a postposition:



(5)        taku ota John itowapi ki el/etaN/uN/thaNtahaN iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask John many things about the picture'



With w-iyuNg^a-pi (WA-ask-PL), the acceptability of objects seems to be more restricted. Putting all three objects is ungrammatical:



(6)        *John itowapi ki taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John  picture the things many WA-ask-PL

            'they ask John many things about the picture'



In all wiyuNg^api-examples elicited so far, the NP John may appear, which is not surprising since John, as an animate referent, can never be coreferential with wa-, which requires inanimate referents. The same is true for the wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi-examples (WA-WA-ask-PL). But only one of the other two object NPs is admissible. So a possible working hypothesis is that with wiyuNg^api, either the 'about'-phrase or the 'object of the question'-phrase (for lack of a better term) are eliminated by the presence of w-.



'object of question'-phrase present:



(7)        John taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John things many WA-ask-PL

            'they ask John many things'



However, if the 'about'-phrase is explicitly expressed, it must apparently be coded by means of a postposition:



(8)        John itowapi ki thaNtahaN w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John picture the about WA-ask-PL

            'they ask John about the picture'



(9)        *John itowapi ki wiyuNg^api

            'they ask John about the picture'



One more thing worth checking is if the presence of a postposition such as thaNtahaN in the 'about' phrase would make the triple-object example (6) acceptable. On the basis of the above working hypothesis, we might expect now that with double wa-, both inanimate object NPs, i.e. the 'about'-phrase and the 'object of question'-phrase, will be "banned" from the clause as independent constituents. However, very much to my surprise, the following example is grammatical on several trials:



(10)      John itowapi ki    taku    ota      wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John picture  the  things  many  WA-WA-ask-PL

'they ask John many things about the picture'



At this point, the hypothesis about the object-eliminating function of wa- collapses since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take some mysterious additional types of semantic object whose exact nature could, so far, not be determined by my elicitation techniques, we have to interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential with the full NPs itowapi ki 'the picture' and taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize that these data do not really take us in the direction in which they hoped they would take us, since my initial idea was that by putting full object NPs and checking which wa-s would be eliminated by their presence, we'd get some more insight into the semantic reference of the wa-s. In this context, I also experimented with Rory's suggestions about wa-:



(11)      sapa i'uN  'to paint black'   is grammatical, and so is



(12)      itowapi ki he wi'uN 'to paint that picture'.



I also elicited



(13)      John itowapi ki he zi i'uN

      'John paints that picture yellow'



(14)      John itowapi ki he zi wi'uN

      'John paints that picture yellow'.



In other words, again, it does not seem to matter much if the wa-s are there or not, they do certainly not eliminate the full object NPs they should be coreferential with. So, structurally speaking, these wa-s do not really detransitivize verbs, although I agree with Bob saying that in other cases, via "piecemeal grammaticalization", wa- might actually function as a true detransitivizer.

As for Carolyn's Osage data, in with wa- is glossed by 'repetitive action', I think they are really good examples of something that is in the semantic range of "variety object". So if variety wa- in Lakota indicates diversification of the object in the material world, the Osage version expresses diversification of action in time. I tried to track down this usage in Lakota as well, but I always ended up with examples in which repetitive action is coded by the progressive/continuous/repetitive marker -hAN/-he, rather than by wa-:



(15)      thi-'i-wa-'uN-he

            house-paint-1SG.AG-paint-REP

            'I paint the house over and over, I paint and paint the house'



Regina




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031216/167bcf8c/attachment.html>

From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Dec 16 19:45:52 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:52 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <TUE.16.DEC.2003.134552.0600.>

Regina,

All your messages except that very first one have
been just fine.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "REGINA PUSTET" <pustetrm at yahoo.com>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


>
> (Regarding the difficulties with the format of
some of my previous messages, I'm working with
Yahoo, and I'm not sure if there is a way of
getting around html format with Yahoo. I'm now
trying to convert my message into txt format --
please let me know if this looks nicer.)
>
>
>
> Here's some more data on Lakota wa-. This time,
I'm mainly interested in constructions with
multiple wa-, but I'm afraid that the following
data complicate, rather than clarify, the
situation. Using iyuNg^a 'to ask' for the purpose
of demonstration, in Lakota, this verb may take
three (seemingly direct) objects:
>
>
>
> (1)        John itowapi ki taku ota iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John  picture the things many ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> (2)        John iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask John'
>
>
>
> (3)        taku ota iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask him many things'
>
>
>
> (4)        itowapi ki iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask him about the picture'
>
>
>
> although there is a tendency to mark the 'about'
phrase explicitly by means of a postposition:
>
>
>
> (5)        taku ota John itowapi ki
el/etaN/uN/thaNtahaN iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> With w-iyuNg^a-pi (WA-ask-PL), the acceptability
of objects seems to be more restricted. Putting
all three objects is ungrammatical:
>
>
>
> (6)        *John itowapi ki taku ota
w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John  picture the things many
WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> In all wiyuNg^api-examples elicited so far, the
NP John may appear, which is not surprising since
John, as an animate referent, can never be
coreferential with wa-, which requires inanimate
referents. The same is true for the
wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi-examples (WA-WA-ask-PL). But only
one of the other two object NPs is admissible. So
a possible working hypothesis is that with
wiyuNg^api, either the 'about'-phrase or the
'object of the question'-phrase (for lack of a
better term) are eliminated by the presence of w-.
>
>
>
> 'object of question'-phrase present:
>
>
>
> (7)        John taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John things many WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things'
>
>
>
> However, if the 'about'-phrase is explicitly
expressed, it must apparently be coded by means of
a postposition:
>
>
>
> (8)        John itowapi ki thaNtahaN
w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John picture the about WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John about the picture'
>
>
>
> (9)        *John itowapi ki wiyuNg^api
>
>             'they ask John about the picture'
>
>
>
> One more thing worth checking is if the presence
of a postposition such as thaNtahaN in the 'about'
phrase would make the triple-object example (6)
acceptable. On the basis of the above working
hypothesis, we might expect now that with double
wa-, both inanimate object NPs, i.e. the
'about'-phrase and the 'object of
question'-phrase, will be "banned" from the clause
as independent constituents. However, very much to
my surprise, the following example is grammatical
on several trials:
>
>
>
> (10)      John itowapi ki    taku    ota
wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John picture  the  things  many
WA-WA-ask-PL
>
> 'they ask John many things about the picture'
>
>
>
> At this point, the hypothesis about the
object-eliminating function of wa- collapses
since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take
some mysterious additional types of semantic
object whose exact nature could, so far, not be
determined by my elicitation techniques, we have
to interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential
with the full NPs itowapi ki 'the picture' and
taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize
that these data do not really take us in the
direction in which they hoped they would take us,
since my initial idea was that by putting full
object NPs and checking which wa-s would be
eliminated by their presence, we'd get some more
insight into the semantic reference of the wa-s.
In this context, I also experimented with Rory's
suggestions about wa-:
>
>
>
> (11)      sapa i'uN  'to paint black'   is
grammatical, and so is
>
>
>
> (12)      itowapi ki he wi'uN 'to paint that
picture'.
>
>
>
> I also elicited
>
>
>
> (13)      John itowapi ki he zi i'uN
>
>       'John paints that picture yellow'
>
>
>
> (14)      John itowapi ki he zi wi'uN
>
>       'John paints that picture yellow'.
>
>
>
> In other words, again, it does not seem to
matter much if the wa-s are there or not, they do
certainly not eliminate the full object NPs they
should be coreferential with. So, structurally
speaking, these wa-s do not really detransitivize
verbs, although I agree with Bob saying that in
other cases, via "piecemeal grammaticalization",
wa- might actually function as a true
detransitivizer.
>
> As for Carolyn's Osage data, in with wa- is
glossed by 'repetitive action', I think they are
really good examples of something that is in the
semantic range of "variety object". So if variety
wa- in Lakota indicates diversification of the
object in the material world, the Osage version
expresses diversification of action in time. I
tried to track down this usage in Lakota as well,
but I always ended up with examples in which
repetitive action is coded by the
progressive/continuous/repetitive marker -hAN/-he,
rather than by wa-:
>
>
>
> (15)      thi-'i-wa-'uN-he
>
>             house-paint-1SG.AG-paint-REP
>
>             'I paint the house over and over, I
paint and paint the house'
>
>
>
> Regina
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 08:07:48 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:07:48 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031216191740.49765.qmail@web40017.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.010748.0700.>

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:> One more thing worth checking is if the presence of a postposition such
> At this point, the hypothesis about the object-eliminating function of
> wa- collapses since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take some
> mysterious additional types of semantic object whose exact nature could,
> so far, not be determined by my elicitation techniques, we have to
> interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential with the full NPs itowapi
> ki 'the picture' and taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize
> that these data do not really take us in the direction in which they
> hoped they would take us, since my initial idea was that by putting full
> object NPs and checking which wa-s would be eliminated by their
> presence, we'd get some more insight into the semantic reference of the
> wa-s.

The only thing that occurs to me is that perhaps wa does not so much act
to eliminate arguments as to background them.  In effect, it would be
something like an antipassive.  In simple object cases it might be
ungrammatical to include a backgrounded object, but in more complex cases
they might be permissible, or even necessary in some sort of functional
sense, to indicate the structure of the clause.  Foregrounding and
backgrounding are essentially the basis of the contrast between English
"spraypaint" examples, e.g., 'I painted the wall with yellow paint' vs. 'I
painted yellow paint on the wall'.  In a single object case like 'I shot
the deer' vs. 'I shot at the deer', the "antipassive" second alternative
indicates a lesser degree of affectedness or certainty of affectedness, or
perhaps only that the deer is of no further consequence, so that it
matters little whether it was hit or not.

However, for this to make sense with iyuNgha and i(y)uN we have to assume
that some cases of i introduce not one argument, but two - an instrument
or medium or similar sort of argument, and a thing more remotely involved.
I'm not sure I'm phrasing this well, but the two examples in question seem
to be 'with paint the thing painted' and 'some question about a subject'.
Given that the wawemaNghe examples in OP come from text with rather
approximate, one might suspect hurried, glosses, rather than from careful
examinations of the argumentation of the verb, it is possible that the OP
arguments of imaNghe are similar in nature to those of Teton iyuNgha, but
it's also possible that the second wa has come to indicate plurality in
some way, too.

Along these lines, in some cases plurality is a way of expressing a lack
of particularization, and would be a natural basis for translating some
kinds of wa-objects, or perhaps even a real part of the conception of
them.  But it might not work the same in all languages or even all verbs.
In OP wawemaNghe seems to imply multiplicity of questions (or perhaps
subjects of questions) relative to wemaNghe, while in Teton wi(y)uN seems
to imply multiplicity of paint applications (or perhaps places to which
paint is applied).

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 08:16:58 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:16:58 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031216191740.49765.qmail@web40017.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.011658.0700.>

I'd like to add that whatever the basis of the variety object wa and
various multiple wa constructions, this is all extremely interesting, and
I think we are heavily indebted to Dr. Pustet for sharing the data with
us!  It's definitely exciting to be included at the point where someone
first notices something new.

Thanks, Regina!


JEK


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Wed Dec 17 17:20:28 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:20:28 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.112028.0600.>

In light of the present conversations regarding "wa", I have a question regarding the use of "wa" in Omaha/Ponca. Please understand I have little formal linguistic training.

In Ponca we have "ni'the" -to heal. "Wani'the" translates as "THE healer" (Jesus). In this sense, it seems to me, "wa" acts like a "personifier" (correct term?).

We have "xu'be" -holy or mysterious. "Waxu'be" translates as "sacred thing", "sacred bundle", etc. We find "ni ni waxu'be" for "sacred pipe". 

Similarly, we find "wa sa'be" - "sa" or "sa'be" meaning "black" - for "black bear".

Then there's "washa'be" - "sha" often having a translation such as "grey", "in a mist", "in between black and white", "a dark object -like on the horizon". Joe HairyBack (Ponca) (have this on tape) said "washabe" clan is the "buffalo clan" but the word means "buffalo in a mist or a fog...you can't quite make it out".

La Flesche (1939) calls the War Ceremony "Washabe Athi^n". Jablow points out "the Washabe gens, one of the gens in charge of the tribal hunt, 'was the same as THE NAME OF THE CEREMONIAL STAFF used by the Omaha leader of the annual tribal buffalo hunt, and also of that subdivision of the Omaha Honga gens..."

To throw one more wrench in the engine -in light of the discussion regarding "wa wa" - La Flesche (1939) has  WaWa as "the Peace Ceremony" (although I think this comes from wa'o^n -to sing or song).

In light of the present conversations regarding "wa" and its uses, how do these examples fit in?

wi'btha hai ho!
TML


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031217/485e2cb3/attachment.html>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 18:22:57 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:57 -0700
Subject: More regarding "wa"
In-Reply-To: <020701c3c4c2$17d461c0$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.112257.0700.>

These are excellent questions, actually, and issues like this have been
puzzling me for a long time, too.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> In Ponca we have "ni'the" -to heal. "Wani'the" translates as "THE
> healer" (Jesus).  In this sense, it seems to me, "wa" acts like a
> "personifier" (correct term?).

Personifier, in other words, a marker that means 'a person who ...'?  I
suppose maybe the traditional term might be something like "agentive."
In this particular case, I believe that the standard analysis would be
that wa refers to unspecified people who are healed or to the unspecified
existence of people or things healed.  So the form is in effect a sentence
'he heals people' being used as a noun.  Sentences being used as nouns is
sort of the core concept in Siouan derivational morphology.  I think that
the wa- is needed here because without it the form would be 'he heals him'
which would nominalize more or less as 'his healer'.

> We have "xu'be" -holy or mysterious. "Waxu'be" translates as "sacred
> thing", "sacred bundle", etc. We find "ni ni waxu'be" for "sacred pipe".
> ...

But with waxu'be, wasa'be, and was^a'be its a bit more difficult to see
what's happening - for me, anyway.  Presumably with these one-argument
verbs wa makes that one argument nonspecific, yielding an underlying or
literal meaning of 'something that's holy', 'something that's black',
'something that's dark', but it's less clear to me what the unmodified
stem is not adequate.  Clearly it isn't adequate, but I definitely feel
that I grasp the mechanism less certainly.  It appears that patient
arguments - things that would take aN, dhi, etc., as pronouns, rather than
a, dha, etc. - require filling with wa or an incorporated noun to make a
nominal, whereas agent aguments do not.  I still have an uncomfortable
feeling, however, that there are exceptions to this rule, though I'm not
remembering one at the moment.

Notice that Dhegiha does allow wa with animate reference.  I was
momentarily taken aback by Regina's comment yesterday that Dakotan wa was
necessarily inanimate, because of that.  Somehow I had always assumed that
wa could have a non-specific animate reference, too.  Would a Dakotan
nominalization require wic^ha- or something like that if the inspecified
argument was animate?


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 18:27:19 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:27:19 -0700
Subject: Washabe (Re: More regarding "wa")
In-Reply-To: <020701c3c4c2$17d461c0$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.112719.0700.>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> Then there's "washa'be" - "sha" often having a translation such as
> "grey", "in a mist", "in between black and white", "a dark object -like
> on the horizon". Joe HairyBack (Ponca) (have this on tape) said
> "washabe" clan is the "buffalo clan" but the word means "buffalo in a
> mist or a fog...you can't quite make it out".
>
> La Flesche (1939) calls the War Ceremony "Washabe Athi^n". Jablow points
> out "the Washabe gens, one of the gens in charge of the tribal hunt,
> 'was the same as THE NAME OF THE CEREMONIAL STAFF used by the Omaha
> leader of the annual tribal buffalo hunt, and also of that subdivision
> of the Omaha Honga gens..."

I've always associated the Ponca Was^abe clan with the Omaha Washabe
subclan, myself.  When you compare lists of clan names between the several
Dhegiha groups you find a number of instances like this in which what is a
subclan in one group is a clan in another.  Or sometimes a clan in one
simply seems to have several correspondences in another, or, of course,
none.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 18:36:53 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:36:53 -0700
Subject: wawaN (Re: More regarding "wa")
In-Reply-To: <020701c3c4c2$17d461c0$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.113653.0700.>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> To throw one more wrench in the engine -in light of the discussion
> regarding "wa wa" - La Flesche (1939) has WaWa as "the Peace Ceremony"
> (although I think this comes from wa'o^n -to sing or song).

I make this wa'waN (referring to the pipe dance adoption ceremony), with
wa wa and varients being less satisfactory transcriptions that neglect the
nasalization.  This also occurs in Dorsey in various places.  Stucturally
it is wa + a'waN 'to sing on (or over) people; to make an adoption in the
pipe dance' from a'waN 'to sing on (or over) someone; to adopt someone
with the pipe dance'.  The translations with "people" and "someone" are at
best awkward and conventional ways of expressing the transitivity of the
verbs in question.  The expression "pipe dance" itself is also a somewhat
awkward and conventional translation, though I believe it's standard.


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Wed Dec 17 19:49:14 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:49:14 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.134914.0600.>

The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John
are discussing has perplexed me too, particularly in
parsing names for tools and other technical terms.
In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might
refer to the subject as well as to objects.  What I
had in mind was this apparent use of wa- as a
nominalizer:

  wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
  wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
  wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
  wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
  wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'

These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
active verbs can be used in the same way:

  wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'

And then there is the whole suite of implement terms
that are built on the framework of

  [NOM]-i-VERB

where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that
VERB is enacted by means of something.  Usually,
if a noun sits in front:

  NOUN-i-VERB

then the noun is the object of the verb's action.
Rarely, however, it seems that the noun can be
the head of the derived noun phrase, and implies
that the noun is used to perform the verbal action,
rather than that it is the object of the verbal
action.  I only have one example at the moment,
and it's not as clear as I would like.

  moNzezi-i-gattushi
  brass  -i-  explode
  'the brass thing that is used to explode'
  = 'gun cap'

As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal
-i- exists; it might just be

  moNzezi-gattushi
  'exploding brass'

Assuming that such constructions do exist, however,
I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i-
nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and
means 'that which is used to enact VERB'.

In fact, we can find up to three variants of the
same i-VERB nominalization.

  NOUN-i-VERB
  moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube
  coffee     -i-   grind
  'coffee-grinder'

Here, 'coffee' is an object noun.

  i-VERB
  i-dhittube
  i-grind
  'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder'

Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-:

  wa-i-VERB
  wedhittube
  wa-i-grind
  'coffee-grinder'

But does this last construction mean

  'thing used to grind (things)'

or

  '(thing) used to grind things' ?

My gut feeling favors the first interpretation,
and I think our speakers have also favored that,
but it is really hard to find words that clearly
distinguish the matter.

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 17 20:08:19 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:08:19 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.140819.0600.>

Is (wa-)nidhe a causative?  Looks like one.  I'm
assuming that the internal bracketting is [[wa]
[[ni] [dhe]]].  The semantics of the derivational
process here seem fairly consistent, although one
wouldn't expect the semantic outcome of derivation
necessarily to be predictable.  I can't decide
right off whether I consider this (apparently
nominalizing) WA- to be related to our other WA's
synchronically or not.  But "one morpheme or
two??" is an ancient and vexed question when one
tried to a strictly synchronic grammar.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
>   wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
>   wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
>   wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
>   wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
>   wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'
>
> These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
> active verbs can be used in the same way:
>
>   wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 17 20:57:24 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:57:24 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312170109420.27870@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.125724.0800.>

Hi John

Thanks to you and thanks to the list! I really profited from all the comments I got. I think we better leave it at that for now -- the wa- issue drove my speaker to the edge of sanity (not to mention myself). And I'd like to point out that David was the first person I discussed this with, and that he suggested posting this to the list.

Regina (who really doesn't insist on the Dr.  :-) )

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
I'd like to add that whatever the basis of the variety object wa and
various multiple wa constructions, this is all extremely interesting, and
I think we are heavily indebted to Dr. Pustet for sharing the data with
us! It's definitely exciting to be included at the point where someone
first notices something new.

Thanks, Regina!


JEK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031217/e100d8e5/attachment.html>

From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Wed Dec 17 22:10:08 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:10:08 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.161008.0600.>

I'm sure that nidhe is a causative.  I assume
that the ni(N)- part of that is the same root
as in nita, 'to live'.  I'd agree with Bob's
bracketting below.

As for interpretation, I was reflexing off what
Tom and John were using.  According to the
Stabler-Swetland dictionary of Omaha, nidhe
means 'to rescue', presumably 'cause to live'.
This version agrees with Dorsey's use of
Nia'wadhai' for 'Saviour' (He-saves-us, or
He-causes-us-to-live) in Omaha.  (The Ponka
version he gives is the same, with the first
syllable NiN- nasalized.)

So does nidhe mean 'to heal' in modern Ponka?
The Omaha word for 'healer' or 'doctor' seems
to be waze'dhe, also wa-CAUSATIVE.

Rory





                      "R. Rankin"
                      <rankin at ku.edu>             To:       <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      Sent by:                    cc:
                      owner-siouan at lists.c        Subject:  Re: More regarding "wa"
                      olorado.edu


                      12/17/2003 02:08 PM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan






Is (wa-)nidhe a causative?  Looks like one.  I'm
assuming that the internal bracketting is [[wa]
[[ni] [dhe]]].  The semantics of the derivational
process here seem fairly consistent, although one
wouldn't expect the semantic outcome of derivation
necessarily to be predictable.  I can't decide
right off whether I consider this (apparently
nominalizing) WA- to be related to our other WA's
synchronically or not.  But "one morpheme or
two??" is an ancient and vexed question when one
tried to a strictly synchronic grammar.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
>   wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
>   wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
>   wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
>   wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
>   wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'
>
> These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
> active verbs can be used in the same way:
>
>   wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Wed Dec 17 23:44:24 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:44:24 -0600
Subject: wawaN (Re: More regarding "wa")
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.174424.0600.>

> I make this wa'waN (referring to the pipe dance adoption ceremony), with
> wa wa and varients being less satisfactory transcriptions that neglect the
> nasalization.  This also occurs in Dorsey in various places.  Stucturally
> it is wa + a'waN 'to sing on (or over) people; to make an adoption in the
> pipe dance' from a'waN 'to sing on (or over) someone; to adopt someone
> with the pipe dance'.  The translations with "people" and "someone" are at
> best awkward and conventional ways of expressing the transitivity of the
> verbs in question.  The expression "pipe dance" itself is also a somewhat
> awkward and conventional translation, though I believe it's standard.

I think you are correct in stating wa'waN has a conventional translation as
"pipe dance". My dad Joe Rush (Ponca) always said "wa'waN" meant "to sing
over (a person or group)" (Right again, John!). He also said the WaWaN never
used a pipe at all. From a tape I made with him in 1977:

".....they used that calumet wand. That wasn't a pipe. It doesn't have a
pipe bowl on it at all. That wand was used sort of like a pass to travel
among different tribes.  Way back there....pahunga'
the.....ukhi'te.....other tribes ....when they saw that wand....why, they'd
leave you alone. It's a holy thing. People started calling that wand a pipe
in English and I guess the name just stuck. But if you understand Ponca you
know that's not what they're saying.


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Thu Dec 18 00:11:23 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:11:23 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.181123.0600.>

The use of "wa- as a nominalizer", as Rory pointed out, makes some sense in
certain aspects. For instance, Rory pointed out 'wa-z^ide = 'the one that is
red'. Wa-z^ide is Ponca for "tomato".

But 'wa-nidhe' ('the one that heals') while making some sense in this
regard, is also used almost as a proper name. In prayer, people address
Jesus as "Wa-nidhe".


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rory M Larson" <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: More regarding "wa"


>
> The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John
> are discussing has perplexed me too, particularly in
> parsing names for tools and other technical terms.
> In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might
> refer to the subject as well as to objects.  What I
> had in mind was this apparent use of wa- as a
> nominalizer:
>
>   wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
>   wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
>   wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
>   wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
>   wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'
>
> These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
> active verbs can be used in the same way:
>
>   wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'
>
> And then there is the whole suite of implement terms
> that are built on the framework of
>
>   [NOM]-i-VERB
>
> where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that
> VERB is enacted by means of something.  Usually,
> if a noun sits in front:
>
>   NOUN-i-VERB
>
> then the noun is the object of the verb's action.
> Rarely, however, it seems that the noun can be
> the head of the derived noun phrase, and implies
> that the noun is used to perform the verbal action,
> rather than that it is the object of the verbal
> action.  I only have one example at the moment,
> and it's not as clear as I would like.
>
>   moNzezi-i-gattushi
>   brass  -i-  explode
>   'the brass thing that is used to explode'
>   = 'gun cap'
>
> As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal
> -i- exists; it might just be
>
>   moNzezi-gattushi
>   'exploding brass'
>
> Assuming that such constructions do exist, however,
> I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i-
> nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and
> means 'that which is used to enact VERB'.
>
> In fact, we can find up to three variants of the
> same i-VERB nominalization.
>
>   NOUN-i-VERB
>   moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube
>   coffee     -i-   grind
>   'coffee-grinder'
>
> Here, 'coffee' is an object noun.
>
>   i-VERB
>   i-dhittube
>   i-grind
>   'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder'
>
> Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-:
>
>   wa-i-VERB
>   wedhittube
>   wa-i-grind
>   'coffee-grinder'
>
> But does this last construction mean
>
>   'thing used to grind (things)'
>
> or
>
>   '(thing) used to grind things' ?
>
> My gut feeling favors the first interpretation,
> and I think our speakers have also favored that,
> but it is really hard to find words that clearly
> distinguish the matter.
>
> Rory
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 18 00:49:33 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:49:33 -0700
Subject: wawaN (Re: More regarding "wa")
In-Reply-To: <033401c3c4f7$b5e29f00$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.174933.0700.>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> I think you are correct in stating wa'waN has a conventional translation as
> "pipe dance". My dad Joe Rush (Ponca) always said "wa'waN" meant "to sing
> over (a person or group)" (Right again, John!). He also said the WaWaN never
> used a pipe at all. ...

It's nice to have my guess at "over" concide with your dad's translation.
I think that the expression "pipe (dance)" arises because in some groups a
pipe was actually used in lieu of the pipe-like wand used among the Omaha
and Ponca.  The pipe-dance adoption existed in variants among many
different groups in the Eastern part of North America.  As I understand it
it is a sort of alliance or pledge of good relations between the adopter's
clan and the adoptee's clan.  I believe that the Dorsey texts suggest
indirectly that the use of the causative in kinship terms indicates this
sort of adoption between ego and members of a clan or group in which ego's
clan has adopted someone.  The adoptee is the child of the adopter and
relationships between the two clans or lineages proceed on that basis.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Dec 18 14:48:54 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:48:54 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.084854.0600.>

These are both very nice examples of the fact that
the outcome of derivational morphological process
is not semantically predictable.  New words are
created by nominalizing verbs in just the way Rory
states.  Then those words take on a life of their
own and, in these cases, have specialized to very
particular meanings in just the way Tom Leonard
states.  Inflection, of course, is different and
should always have semantically predicatble
results.

Bob

> The use of "wa- as a nominalizer", as Rory
pointed out, makes some sense in
> certain aspects. For instance, Rory pointed out
'wa-z^ide = 'the one that is
> red'. Wa-z^ide is Ponca for "tomato".

> But 'wa-nidhe' ('the one that heals') while
making some sense in this
> regard, is also used almost as a proper name. In
prayer, people address
> Jesus as "Wa-nidhe".


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Fri Dec 19 00:56:41 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:56:41 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.185641.0600.>

Thought I'd share parts of a conversation I've been having with John Koontz.
I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.

I've been studying the "war dance complex" amongst the Dhegiha tribes.

In Ponca, the word for this is "hethu's^ka". I also have the word being
pronounced "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) , hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) and
hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka).

Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost but
add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'". However, my dad Joe Rush in
1977 said the word came from "xthe-xthe" (tattoo or
tattooed people) and "s^ka'de" (play or to enjoy). From a tape of him in
1977: "it meant for the enjoyment of those old folks...those old
folks...they had tattoos on them.....they kind of showed their rank".

Does this make linguistic sense?

Let's look at "s^ka" in the word first.

John suggested "It is interesting to see another connection to s^kade, but I
think that it's not likely that a final s^ka in OP would derived from
s^kade.  I suspect that the Osage revised form with this association in it
has maybe influenced your father, though, of course, I don't know if that's
really a plausible assumption." Joe Rush was the head singer for all three
Osage Districts for many years and he certainly had plenty of contact over
there. So, that might have been the case (although he would have never
admitted it). So, I'll give that a "maybe".

The question regarding s^ka from s^kade (to play) came from a discussion of
the widely held translation of ilon's^ka (the Osage word for the 'war
dance'), that is "playground of the eldest son". LaFlesche (1939) translated
ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder" ("iloN" or igthoN - thunder). It
is my contention the "playground of the eldest son" translation is a folk
etymology that has become quite engrained. In the 1970's I had several
elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing to
do with "playing" or "playgrounds" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).

Oddly enough, the "old religion" had lots to do with bundle rites that
featured "xthe-xthe" - tattooing. The old priests were given tattooes when
they acheived a certain status (see LaFlesche). I think the last Osage who
had these died in the mid 1970's, but I remember seeing him.

I've also wondered if "s^ka came from "s^ka'xe" (you make). I have heard
"s^ka'xe" abbreviated to "s^ka". For instance, you often hear "u' doN s^ka"
(you did good). John mentioned: "In OP gaghe can be used as a sort of
causative, but it means something like "act like, perform as."  There's not
much tendency to lose final syllables in compounding except in initial
elements, e.g., s^aNttaNga, iNkhesabe, waz^iNttu and so on." Culturally,
s^ka from s^kaxe makes some sense. It also makes some sense in the context
of the anthro. literature in this regard.

Now here's the rough part.

Is it conceivable the word ( "hethu's^ka" or "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) or
hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) or  hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka)) could have
changed from "xthe-xthe-s^ka" [s^kaxe or s^kade] to "xe-xthe-s^ka" to
"xe-tho-s^ka" to "he-tho-s^ka"...... (I do have some elders saying
"he-tho-s^ka")......or perhaps.......

"xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
"he-thu-s^ka"........

Are any of these a plausible morph or liguistic change pattern?

One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
"idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Wi'btha hai ho!


From hhgarvin at hotmail.com  Fri Dec 19 04:46:36 2003
From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:46:36 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.224636.0600.>

Thought I'd chime in here.  In Hocank, the word "herus^ka" nowadays refers
to people who go through the pow-wow circuit.  Some say it refers to living
a humble, giving way of life, but as far as I know, it is not related to any
"war dances" and is often associated mainly with pow-wow.  At least at this
point and time. Many of the songs we sing at pow-wow have this word, and are
actually called "herus^ka songs"

I've been told that the word itself means "untying of the horn" and refers
to the headgear worn by dancers (roaches, turbans, etc.).

don't know if this helps.

Henning Garvin
Linguistic research
Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division






>From: "Tom Leonard" <tleonard at prodigy.net>
>Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
>Subject: Hethuska
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:56:41 -0600
>
>Thought I'd share parts of a conversation I've been having with John
>Koontz.
>I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.
>
>I've been studying the "war dance complex" amongst the Dhegiha tribes.
>
>In Ponca, the word for this is "hethu's^ka". I also have the word being
>pronounced "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) , hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) and
>hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka).
>
>Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost but
>add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'". However, my dad Joe Rush in
>1977 said the word came from "xthe-xthe" (tattoo or
>tattooed people) and "s^ka'de" (play or to enjoy). From a tape of him in
>1977: "it meant for the enjoyment of those old folks...those old
>folks...they had tattoos on them.....they kind of showed their rank".
>
>Does this make linguistic sense?
>
>Let's look at "s^ka" in the word first.
>
>John suggested "It is interesting to see another connection to s^kade, but
>I
>think that it's not likely that a final s^ka in OP would derived from
>s^kade.  I suspect that the Osage revised form with this association in it
>has maybe influenced your father, though, of course, I don't know if that's
>really a plausible assumption." Joe Rush was the head singer for all three
>Osage Districts for many years and he certainly had plenty of contact over
>there. So, that might have been the case (although he would have never
>admitted it). So, I'll give that a "maybe".
>
>The question regarding s^ka from s^kade (to play) came from a discussion of
>the widely held translation of ilon's^ka (the Osage word for the 'war
>dance'), that is "playground of the eldest son". LaFlesche (1939)
>translated
>ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder" ("iloN" or igthoN - thunder).
>It
>is my contention the "playground of the eldest son" translation is a folk
>etymology that has become quite engrained. In the 1970's I had several
>elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing
>to
>do with "playing" or "playgrounds" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
>to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
>subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).
>
>Oddly enough, the "old religion" had lots to do with bundle rites that
>featured "xthe-xthe" - tattooing. The old priests were given tattooes when
>they acheived a certain status (see LaFlesche). I think the last Osage who
>had these died in the mid 1970's, but I remember seeing him.
>
>I've also wondered if "s^ka came from "s^ka'xe" (you make). I have heard
>"s^ka'xe" abbreviated to "s^ka". For instance, you often hear "u' doN s^ka"
>(you did good). John mentioned: "In OP gaghe can be used as a sort of
>causative, but it means something like "act like, perform as."  There's not
>much tendency to lose final syllables in compounding except in initial
>elements, e.g., s^aNttaNga, iNkhesabe, waz^iNttu and so on." Culturally,
>s^ka from s^kaxe makes some sense. It also makes some sense in the context
>of the anthro. literature in this regard.
>
>Now here's the rough part.
>
>Is it conceivable the word ( "hethu's^ka" or "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) or
>hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) or  hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka)) could have
>changed from "xthe-xthe-s^ka" [s^kaxe or s^kade] to "xe-xthe-s^ka" to
>"xe-tho-s^ka" to "he-tho-s^ka"...... (I do have some elders saying
>"he-tho-s^ka")......or perhaps.......
>
>"xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
>"he-thu-s^ka"........
>
>Are any of these a plausible morph or liguistic change pattern?
>
>One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
>"idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
>shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?
>
>Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Wi'btha hai ho!
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work �  and
yourself.   http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx


From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc  Fri Dec 19 14:54:21 2003
From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:54:21 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.085421.0600.>

Tom:
The Dakota here at Spirit Lake Rez used the term. Heyoska as meaning a
member of the Grass Dance Society.
They used to sing many songs with Heyoska in the words.
The Arikara and Hidatsa at Ft. Berthold Rez still use some of these songs
that were taught by the tribal members from here in the last century.
The use of this term here has died out.
Some of the singers still remember my favorite song:
Heyoska wotape - the Feast Song.

I have spent years writing up a job description for each one of the officers
of the old Grass Dance Society.
I see a book was published last year "Dance Lodges of the Omaha People:
Building from memory" by mark Awakiuni-Swetland. New York: Routledge 2001.
$75.
Have you seen it? Is it any good?
Later,
Louie


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Fri Dec 19 16:07:36 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:07:36 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.100736.0600.>

An idea that occurs to me is that the final part of /hedhu's^ka/,
instead of being a truncated /s^ka'de/, 'play', might be
/us^koN'/, meaning 'deed', 'behavior' or 'activity'.  A lot of
nasal vowels get denasalized, at least in modern OP, and I can
easily imagine a compounded X-u's^koN becoming X-u's^ka.  We'd
have to shift the accent back a syllable, but I think this does
happen in some nominalizations of u- verbs (John?).

Under that hypothesis, we could probably translate /hedhu's^ka/
transparently as "horn-activity", with epenthetic 'y', 'r' or
'dh' in between.  But Tom's idea that the /he(dh)-/ part of
that is from 'tattoo', /xdhe'xdhe/ (or perhaps just plain *xdhe
without reduplication?) should work as well with this as with
/s^ka'de/.  It would also have the advantage of accounting for
that accented 'u'/'o' in the middle, which is otherwise missing
from the etymology:

> "xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
> "he-thu-s^ka"........

So how about:

"xthe-xthe-u's^koN" to "xthe-xthu'-s^ka" to "xe-thu'-s^ka" to
"he-thu'-s^ka"........

Rory





                      "Tom Leonard"
                      <tleonard at prodigy.ne        To:       <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      t>                          cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  Hethuska
                      owner-siouan at lists.c
                      olorado.edu


                      12/18/2003 06:56 PM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan






Thought I'd share parts of a conversation I've been having with John
Koontz.
I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.

I've been studying the "war dance complex" amongst the Dhegiha tribes.

In Ponca, the word for this is "hethu's^ka". I also have the word being
pronounced "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) , hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) and
hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka).

Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost but
add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'". However, my dad Joe Rush in
1977 said the word came from "xthe-xthe" (tattoo or
tattooed people) and "s^ka'de" (play or to enjoy). From a tape of him in
1977: "it meant for the enjoyment of those old folks...those old
folks...they had tattoos on them.....they kind of showed their rank".

Does this make linguistic sense?

Let's look at "s^ka" in the word first.

John suggested "It is interesting to see another connection to s^kade, but
I
think that it's not likely that a final s^ka in OP would derived from
s^kade.  I suspect that the Osage revised form with this association in it
has maybe influenced your father, though, of course, I don't know if that's
really a plausible assumption." Joe Rush was the head singer for all three
Osage Districts for many years and he certainly had plenty of contact over
there. So, that might have been the case (although he would have never
admitted it). So, I'll give that a "maybe".

The question regarding s^ka from s^kade (to play) came from a discussion of
the widely held translation of ilon's^ka (the Osage word for the 'war
dance'), that is "playground of the eldest son". LaFlesche (1939)
translated
ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder" ("iloN" or igthoN - thunder).
It
is my contention the "playground of the eldest son" translation is a folk
etymology that has become quite engrained. In the 1970's I had several
elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing
to
do with "playing" or "playgrounds" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).

Oddly enough, the "old religion" had lots to do with bundle rites that
featured "xthe-xthe" - tattooing. The old priests were given tattooes when
they acheived a certain status (see LaFlesche). I think the last Osage who
had these died in the mid 1970's, but I remember seeing him.

I've also wondered if "s^ka came from "s^ka'xe" (you make). I have heard
"s^ka'xe" abbreviated to "s^ka". For instance, you often hear "u' doN s^ka"
(you did good). John mentioned: "In OP gaghe can be used as a sort of
causative, but it means something like "act like, perform as."  There's not
much tendency to lose final syllables in compounding except in initial
elements, e.g., s^aNttaNga, iNkhesabe, waz^iNttu and so on." Culturally,
s^ka from s^kaxe makes some sense. It also makes some sense in the context
of the anthro. literature in this regard.

Now here's the rough part.

Is it conceivable the word ( "hethu's^ka" or "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) or
hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) or  hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka)) could have
changed from "xthe-xthe-s^ka" [s^kaxe or s^kade] to "xe-xthe-s^ka" to
"xe-tho-s^ka" to "he-tho-s^ka"...... (I do have some elders saying
"he-tho-s^ka")......or perhaps.......

"xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
"he-thu-s^ka"........

Are any of these a plausible morph or liguistic change pattern?

One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
"idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Wi'btha hai ho!


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Dec 19 16:22:26 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:22:26 -0600
Subject: Hethushka -- the curmudgeonly explanation.
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.102226.0600.>

The linguist in me tells me that ALL of the
proposed etymologies/sources for this term thus
far are probably "folk etymologies".  There is no
guarantee that the term is even Siouan in origin.
This is especially the case since it is attested
in Pawnee and possibly other languages.  Where
else is it represented and where/when did it
begin?

There is strong evidence that the term has been
borrowed/loaned around quite apart from its
appearance in Pawnee.  The sound correspondences
simply don't match among the languages -- even
closely related ones -- where the term is found.
The Omaha and Ponca [dh] doesn't match the Osage
and Kaw [l], which, then, has to represent either
a borrowed [dh] sound or the remains of an earlier
[gl] cluster.  Neither works, and I see no point
in stretching credibility to make the Osage/Kaw
forms into datives, reflexives, reciprocals or
whatever other Kontortions one would have to go to
to make the phonemes match.  The oral/nasal vowels
don't match either.  And accent seems to be on
different syllables in different languages.
Everything points to diffusion.

We do know several things, but they remain pretty
non-specific.  (1) it definitely has to do with
dancing everywhere it occurs, (2) in several
groups, this is strictly a men's society/dance.
(3) the Grass Dance wouldn't necessarily fit with
2 "down South" however.  The pow-wow circuit is
within the general dance category.

About all I can add in the way of semantic rumors
is that I've heard that it is somehow derived from
a term for dance CIRCLE.  But those are just
rumors.

I wish I could be more positive.  I think the only
way to pursue this is to try to track down
specific semantic references in as many languages
as possible and see how or if they fit together.
That's what I've tried to do here, but I haven't
gotten very far!

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 19 18:06:44 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:06:44 -0700
Subject: Hethushka -- the curmudgeonly explanation.
In-Reply-To: <002101c3c64c$5d8c0f20$2eb5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.110644.0700.>

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:
> The linguist in me tells me that ALL of the proposed etymologies/sources
> for this term thus far are probably "folk etymologies".  There is no
> guarantee that the term is even Siouan in origin. This is especially the
> case since it is attested in Pawnee and possibly other languages.
> Where else is it represented and where/when did it begin?

The short of it is that I agree with Bob.

> There is strong evidence that the term has been borrowed/loaned around
> quite apart from its appearance in Pawnee.  The sound correspondences
> simply don't match among the languages -- even closely related ones --
> where the term is found. The Omaha and Ponca [dh] doesn't match the
> Osage and Kaw [l], which, then, has to represent either a borrowed [dh]
> sound or the remains of an earlier [gl] cluster.  Neither works, and I
> see no point in stretching credibility to make the Osage/Kaw forms into
> datives, reflexives, reciprocals or whatever other Kontortions one would
> have to go to to make the phonemes match.  The oral/nasal vowels don't
> match either.  And accent seems to be on different syllables in
> different languages. Everything points to diffusion.

I do suspect that the original form here is something like the OP form
hedhus^ka and that versions that substitute i for he (or s for s^) are
minimally divergent from this, perhaps in the interest of producing a more
canonical seeming form for a fundamentally uninterpretable word.  The
Osage (and maybe Kaw) forms with iloN substituted for hedhu are probably
cases where iloN 'eldest son' or possibly 'thunder' (really loN, isn't
it?) has been specifically substituted for the meaningless hedhu syllables
within those languages, again trying to form a more plausible sounding
word - a strong suggestion of a borrowing.

I don't know of any interpretation for the word that doesn't strike me as
a more or less strained folk etymology, and I can't make anything of the
pieces, though, if I had to guess, it would be hedhus^ (meaningless to me,
and not a very canonical morpheme either) + ka, the latter acting as a
nominalizer:  "those who hedhus^."  Ignoring more divergent forms like
those in Osage, you could come up with a pseudo-reconstruction as
*heros^ka, and this or *iros^ka seem to be the underlying models in most
of the within-Siouan phonological adaptations I've run into.

I really don't think I've seen any parallel to xdh- developing as hedh- in
any Dhegiha language.  It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that
happens when English speakers who don't know the language try to work with
transcriptions of xdh (maybe with h. for x), but not usually when native
speakers deal with the language orally.  That is, I wouldn't expect xdhe
to progress to hedh(e), let alone hedhu.  But it could well be the sort of
thing that a native speaker would come up with when racking his brain for
an explanation of meaningless hedh(u)-.  As a species we really hate for
things not to be explicable.  "I don't know" is a fundamentally annoying
answer.

In any event, if this were the explanation, then the final e of xdhe seems
to disappear in hedhus^ka, meaning that it would have to be something like
hedhe + us^ka, where Rory's suggestion works as well as any.  However,
sources like Dorsey don't write hedhus^kaN and we'd hardly expect speakers
of other Siouan languages to miss the nasal in borrowing the word.

> We do know several things, but they remain pretty non-specific.  (1) it
> definitely has to do with dancing everywhere it occurs, (2) in several
> groups, this is strictly a men's society/dance. (3) the Grass Dance
> wouldn't necessarily fit with 2 "down South" however.  The pow-wow
> circuit is within the general dance category.

I think that the Hedus^hka is pretty clearly a men's society in its Omaha
form.  There is a revived society active today.  The historical society
has all the hallmarks of a Plains men's society.  It has officers, and a
characteristic regalia.  It has a genre of music realized originally as a
set of society songs, and it has a dance.  It seems to be especially
concerned with the celebration of war honors, which is characteristic of
Plains men's societies.

There are historical reports of the Omahas selling the society to the
Dakota (Yanktons, if I recall) in the middle 1800s.  I think that this
sort of transfer probably underlies what is called the "Grass Dance" in
English, because that is generally said to be derived from the Hedhus^ka,
and my understanding (from Lowie) is that the Grass Dance underlies the
Hot Dance acquired by the Missouri River groups from the Dakotas.  It
think it is generally understood at Pow Wows today that this complex -
regalia, music, dance - underlies the "straight" dancing competitions.

I am really not a specialist in Plains music or dancing or men's
societies, so I am not sure I have any or all of this right.  I am also
not sure to what extent Hedus^ka songs and dancing are unique against the
backdrop of similar practices in other societies.  It does seem that a
succession of groups found something about the complex to be new and
attractive.  It seems to have been the Plains equivalent of a dance craze
and even, without intending any disrespect, calls to mind the analog of
"the birth of Rock'n'Roll."  Suddenly everybody wanted to sing these songs
and do these dances, though they'd certainly been singing and dancing
before.

Of course, there's actually quite a lot of variation and historical
progression in the regalia and dancing as the complex has spread north and
propagated through the Pow Wow circuit.  Regalia and even details in ways
of doing the dance are seen as regional traits and good or bad depending
on what your own local standards are.  I was admiring a particularly
energetic, high-stepping, "steel springs in the legs" style once,
apparently a "northern"  style, and had an Omaha person or two point out
the subtle, understated, dignified style of an older Omaha man as their
own ideal.

There does seem to be a consensus, scholarly and also popular, that the
Omaha (I think here including the Ponca) are a source of the northern
spread of the Hedhus^ka.  I've never stumbled on anything about the
southerly spread (or prior existence) of the Hedhus^ka and have no idea
what the story might be there.  I do remember a Kiowa dance group
specifying that the next dance was an "Ohama" or maybe it was "Omaha"  or
even "Ovama" dance.  I wish I'd been able to hear clearly what he said!

> I wish I could be more positive.  I think the only way to pursue this is
> to try to track down specific semantic references in as many languages
> as possible and see how or if they fit together. That's what I've tried
> to do here, but I haven't gotten very far!

I agree, and I'd suggest further that a general attention to complexes of
this sort might be an effective strategy.  Often trying to understand how
something differs from similar things is a good way to come at its precise
character.  For example, a lot of society names incorporate an animal
reference.  The Omaha belt is specifically called a "crow."  On the other
hand, I've often thought that the details of the costume and the dancing
were vaguely reminiscent of game bird lek displays.


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 19 20:42:19 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:42:19 -0800
Subject: More regarding "wa"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312171059070.24480@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.124219.0800.>


I looked at my wa-file again, and I found one example in which wa- potentially has animate reference in Lakota:



John wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi

John WA-WA-ask-PL



can mean either 'they ask John about things' or 'they ask people about John'. Regarding the second translation, my speaker feels that wa- refers to the people being asked. However, this is the only example in hundreds of wa-clauses in which wa- seems to have animate reference. But thinking about this further, in etymologizing Lakota nouns such as



wa-makha-s^kaN

WA-earth-move.ITR

'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',



we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different way of analyzing this form?



Regina



> Notice that Dhegiha does allow wa with animate reference. I was
> momentarily taken aback by Regina's comment yesterday that Dakotan wa was
> necessarily inanimate, because of that. Somehow I had always assumed that
> wa could have a non-specific animate reference, too. Would a Dakotan
> nominalization require wic^ha- or something like that if the inspecified
> argument was animate?






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031219/d5de36f6/attachment.html>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 19 21:49:46 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:49:46 -0700
Subject: More regarding "wa"
In-Reply-To: <20031219204219.5977.qmail@web40006.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.144946.0700.>

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> wa-makha-s^kaN
> WA-earth-move.ITR
> 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',
>
> we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different
> way of analyzing this form?

I think this sort of consideration depends critically on whether we see
wa- in nominalizations as marking the "subject" of the nominalization or a
non-specific "patient" (stative-pronoun concord) in the case frame of the
nominalization, which, of course, might be a subject.  If the latter then
it would depend on the position of wa- in the case frame.

In other words, in something like OP we'base 'saw' < wa + i + base 'cut by
pushing', is wa- a reference to the saw (something you cut things with)
or to non-specific things cut with the saw (a thing you cut non-specific
things with).

JEK


From goodtracks at GBRonline.com  Sat Dec 20 02:59:08 2003
From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:59:08 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.205908.0600.>

> One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
> "idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
> shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?

The Ioway-Otoe term "Iroshka", the Ponca "Hethushka" and the Pawnee term
"Iruska" are all glossed (as far back as I can remember back to the 1950s)
by community members in Oklahoma as "War Dance (Society)", even though it
does not translate to none of the terms for "war/ dance/ society".  I
believe that it is a misnomer, as is the "Pipe Dance" for the Hunka [IO =
Hunge/ HuNGe] adoption ceremony.  Perhaps, they took over the term applied
to it by non-native observers, who were quick to apply terms without
knowledge of native contexts.  Historically, it was said to be a warriors
society, but after intertribal warfare was forbidden by the government, the
society was remade over into a fellowship and benevolent society.  The whole
term is "Iroshka Wokigo".  Wokigo is the word for society, and is composed
of the recently discussed "wa-" + "u- + kigo" (in/ into; within + to feast).
Several late Otoe, Ioway elders suggested that the term meant "only the
body" from "iro" (body) + -sdaN/ -staN (only; nothing but).  Obviously, this
is folk ethmology, as are likely all the other conjectured "translations"
and word analysis.  (My opinion).

In Oklahoma, the Iroshka is held at regular times of the year among the
Otoe-Missouria [Their "Christmas" Iroshka is tomarrow, Sat. afternoon
(Dec.20th) at the tribal complex near Red Rock, OK], the Ponca at White
Eagle, the Pawnee at Pawnee and the three Osage community "districts" still
hold the Iroshka as a traditional ceremonial form with "rules &
regulations".  It is often called "straight dance".   All follow the
traditional patterns with a headman, several tail dancers, appointed water
carriers (my grandson is one for Otoe), and a closed drum with selected head
singer and his support singers.  The Otoe Iroshka has been recently
reorganized in the past several years.  The Poncas had at times two
competing societies, but not at the present.  The Pawnees have several
groups under tvarious names:  Skidi Dance, Kitkehaki Dance, Ralph Weeks
Dance, Morgan Family's Dance and the Pawnee Veterans.

It is said that the Iroska had its origins with the Lakota who passed it on
to the Omaha and Northern Hidatsa and Arickarees.  From there it evolved
into the Northern grass dance, the Southern straight dance and ironically,
the Drum Dance as found among the Ojibwe, Potawatomi and Kickapoo.  Besides
the book on the Osage Ilonska, there have been several good thesis written
on the Iroshka well researched with elders.  One is Jim Charles, 1987/ 1990.
"Songs of the Ponca Helushka", NEH Summer Seminar, American Indian Verbal
Art & Literature. (Larry Evers, Dir.). University of South Carolina.
Another is Jimmy Duncan, 1997.  "Hethushka Zani:  An Ethnohistory of the War
Dance Complex", Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Okla.  He does a
very in-depth research.  He employs many Ponca (Dhegiha) terms and phrases
with explanations.  He speaks to the connection of the society with various
sacred bundles among the Ponca, Omaha and Osage at its earliest development,
which later was altered to accommodate acculturation trends.  He proposes a
theoretical connection with Mississippian cultures, which seems a bit
reaching.  If you can get a copy, this latter study should be of much
interest and satisfy many of your questions.

Presently, another publication is in progess via J.Rex Reddick.  You can
contact him directly for more information at: Rex at crazycrow.com

> Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost
but
> add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'".
I tend to agree that the term is ancient and defies meaning.  Yet I've heard
both 'war dance' or 'man dance' used with the Poncas; however, the latter
term is less said among the Otoes & Pawnees.

>  LaFlesche (1939) translated ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder"
("iloN" or igthoN - thunder).
> In the 1970's I had several
> elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing
to
> do with "playing" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
> to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
> subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).
This bears out even today.  During the four day "Ilonska" at each of the
three communities (Grey Horse, Hominy & Pawhuska), one often hears remarks
that the "old ways" were put away and replaced with the Ilonska, and the
"little drum", Native American Church.  Duncan addresses this in his thesis.

A former NudaHanga was rebuffed by his Osage relations when he formed a
mentor relationship with several northern spiritual people.  He continued on
to complete several fasting quests, sun danced and used regularly with
genuine devotion the Sacred Pipe which he kept, unto his final days.
Another prominent Osage from the Hominy district also journeyed north for a
similar introduction into the "old traditional ways.  His experience was
wholly satisfying, but like his Ponca-Osage peer, he too was chastized for
setting up a sweat purification lodge.  He at last told me that although it
was a good thing, he put it all away, including his sacred pipe, to avoid
further hastle from the Osage community and Ilonska Committee, who also were
NAC members.

> Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Wi'btha hai ho!
>


From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu  Sat Dec 20 14:34:52 2003
From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:34:52 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <SAT.20.DEC.2003.083452.0600.>

From: "Louis Garcia" <Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Hethuska


> I see a book was published last year "Dance Lodges of the Omaha People:
Building from memory" by mark Awakiuni-Swetland. New York: Routledge 2001.
$75. Have you seen it? Is it any good?

Louie:
I can not tell you if the monograph is any good. I will leave that up to the
opinion of the readers. However, I can mention that the Hethushka Dance is
mentioned as it relates to how the Omaha dance lodges were utilized, but the
origins and activities of the Hethushka Society is not described. I refer
readers to Wissler's 1916 compilation and Fletcher and La Flesche's 1911
description.

There is a brief description of the Omaha Hethushka ZhiNga society including
a list of the members through the early 20th century.

In regard to John's reference to the Kiowa dance, I am inserting a note from
my friend Gus Palmer, Jr.'s recent book on Kiowa story telling:

Telling Stories the Kiowa Way

Gus Palmer, Jr.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press

2003



Omaha: 133n. 1



    Óhòmaù is the sacred war dance society of the Kiowas. Given to the
Kiowas long ago by the Omaha tribe         as a token of friendship in the
form of a sacred dance bustle, songs, and dance, the society holds a
powwow every year at the Óhòmaù ceremonial grounds west of Anadarko,
Oklahoma. Only Kiowa males         may become members of the dance society.



I hope this is useful.



Mele Kalikimaka

mark



Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska
Anthropology/Ethnic Studies
Native American Studies
Bessey Hall 132
Lincoln, NE 68588-0368
402-472-3455
FAX 402-472-9642
mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 16:34:54 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:34:54 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312191441340.8370@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.DEC.2003.083454.0800.>

There are 182 occurrences of wa- 'non-specific
patient' in my Lakota texts (University of Nebraska
Press, forthcoming). In only one of these cases (!!),
wa- lends itself to analysis as 'non-specific animate
patient' in a straightforward way:

wan�  ma-th�Nka    cha wa-w-�-wa-kiyiN          na �
now   1SG.PAT-big  so  WA-WA-help-1SG.AG-help   and
'now I was big, so I helped (people?) with the work to
be done'

On assuming that �kiya 'to help' is ditransitive in
that it has PAT slots for the beneficiary of the act
of helping and for the thing someone is being helped
with, one of the wa-s should express the notion of
'(help) people'. Regarding animacy of wa-, the
following example can also be taken into
consideration:

h�    thok�ya   ptebl�s^ka   ki   wich�-kte-pi
that  first     cattle       DEF  3PL.PAT-kill-PL

na    wa-ph�ta-pi
and   WA-butcher-PL
'first they killed the cows and butchered them'

Ptebl�s^ka 'cattle' is the implied referent of wa- in
wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'. But since the
(basically animate) cattle are already dead when being
butchered, does wa- still count as an animate referent
in wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'? Similarly, the
following example raises the question of whether
plants or plant parts qualify as animate or not.

cha    ey�s^na    wa-w�pta   om�ni        s^kh�
so     sometimes  WA-dig up  walk about   QUOT
'sometimes she walked around digging (up edible
roots)'

There are, of course, cases in which wa- can be taken
to refer to both animate and inanimate entities at the
same time, such as

l�    l�la  wa-kh�l   way�phika   k�ye
this  very  WA-shoot  skilful     QUOT
'he was a very skilled hunter, i.e. "skilled at
shooting things"'

Wa-khul 'shoot things' refers to the ability to hit a
target, be it animate or inanimate. So on the basis of
these data, I conclude that in Lakota discourse, usage
of wa- with exclusively animate reference, as in the
first example, is extremely rare. Intuitively, the
idea of using wa- specifically with reference to
humans still strikes me as weird, but I think the
first example can be analyzed this way.

Regina




--- Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> > wa-makha-s^kaN
> > WA-earth-move.ITR
> > 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',
> >
> > we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or
> is there a different
> > way of analyzing this form?
>
> I think this sort of consideration depends
> critically on whether we see
> wa- in nominalizations as marking the "subject" of
> the nominalization or a
> non-specific "patient" (stative-pronoun concord) in
> the case frame of the
> nominalization, which, of course, might be a
> subject.  If the latter then
> it would depend on the position of wa- in the case
> frame.
>
> In other words, in something like OP we'base 'saw' <
> wa + i + base 'cut by
> pushing', is wa- a reference to the saw (something
> you cut things with)
> or to non-specific things cut with the saw (a thing
> you cut non-specific
> things with).
>
> JEK


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Sat Dec 20 23:32:10 2003
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:32:10 -0500
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <20031220163454.13096.qmail@web40008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.DEC.2003.183210.0500.>

With apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but I’m trying to understand
which wa- is which in this example:

>
> waná  ma-tháNka    cha wa-w-ó-wa-kiyiN          na 

> now   1SG.PAT-big  so  WA-WA-help-1SG.AG-help   and
> 'now I was big, so I helped (people?) with the work to
> be done'

I find at least two examples in Boas and Deloria (1941:53) where wa- has animate
reference:

wao’hola   ‘to be respectful to persons, things’
wao’kiya   ‘to help people’

Shaw (1980:79) observes that when wa- “clearly has a pronominal function and
signifies an indefinite object (usually translated as ‘persons’ or ‘things’)
it’s [a] does not delete.” She includes waokiya ‘to help people’ as an example,
taken from Boas and Deloria.

What I don’t find anywhere is where wókiya means ‘to help people’, so is wókiya
one of those coalesced words with special meaning, i.e. ‘to help with the work
to be done’?  If so, in this example I guess the first wa- would have to refer
to people and the second w(a)- to a specialized meaning, “the work to be done”?

Regarding the following:

> hé    thokéya   pteblés^ka   ki   wichá-kte-pi
> that  first     cattle       DEF  3PL.PAT-kill-PL
>
> na    wa-pháta-pi
> and   WA-butcher-PL
> 'first they killed the cows and butchered them'
>
> Pteblés^ka 'cattle' is the implied referent of wa- in
> wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'. But since the
> (basically animate) cattle are already dead when being
> butchered, does wa- still count as an animate referent
> in wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'? Similarly, the
> following example raises the question of whether
> plants or plant parts qualify as animate or not.

I would have expected wicha-phata-pi rather than wa-phata. Could the sentence
mean something like, ‘they killed the cows and then they did some butchering’?

In my Assiniboine data I have the following, with wicha- twice:

phaghuNta zhena wicha-wa-o    $paN-wicha-wa-ya   chen
duck      those them 1S-shoot cook-them-1S-Caus  then/therefore
‘I shot those ducks then I cooked them’


Linda


From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc  Mon Dec 22 14:53:42 2003
From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:53:42 -0600
Subject: Hethuska dance halls
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.085342.0600.>

Hi gang:
To Mark Awakuni Swetland:
I was pleasently surprised by knowing that you were on-line.
I have tried to contact Routledge but keep getting another website which
makes not a mention of your book.
I have write an account of the dance halls here at Spirit Lake (Devils Lake,
ND) and would certainly like to cite your book.
At present I am writng just to get the stuff on paper and will refine it
later.
Any one who would like a copy I could post it here, but fell it is off
topic, though it does have many Dakota terms. E-mail me off line for an
electronic copy.
Toksta ake,
Louis Garcia
Cankdeska Cikana Community College
Ft. Totten, ND


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Mon Dec 22 16:54:04 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:54:04 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.105404.0600.>

Dakotan wicha- implies animate plural patient,
like English "them".  Does it also imply that
the topic it refers to is specific, definite,
known to the listener, rather than indefinite
or hypothetical?  (I recall that waN and waN'z^i
in Lakhota make that distinction.)  If I use
wicha-, does it imply that I am referring to
a particular, known set of animate beings, or
could I also use it to refer to 'folks in general'?


Linda wrote:
> I find at least two examples in Boas and Deloria
> (1941:53) where wa- has animate reference:
>
> wao'hola   'to be respectful to persons, things'
> wao'kiya   'to help people'

This wa- might be referring to 'people in general',
but might it not as well be referring to the
quality or practice of being respectful or helpful,
without any particular object of interest?  (I'm
thinking of John's suggestion that wa- serves to
background the object of a transitive verb, so as
to emphasize the activity rather than the object
of a particular action.)

Rory


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 22 23:15:43 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:15:43 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <1071963130.3fe4dbfa96d3c@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.151543.0800.>

Regarding (hypothetical) animacy of wa- and
non-specificity of wicha-, here's some more examples;
they are just a couple of hours old:

(1)	okichize el ota      wicha-kte-pi
	war        in  many  WICHA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the war'

(2)	*okichize el  ota       wa-kte-pi
	war           in  many  WA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the war'

I hope that with ota 'many', I have created a PAT that
is non-specific enough to "deserve" being
cross-referenced by wa-, at least theoretically.
Still, the wa-version (2) is ungrammatical -- the
affix that must be used here is wicha-. While in the
above examples, the PAT is human, in (3) and (4),
animals are the implied referents in the PAT slot:

(3)	owichakte  el ota       wicha-kte-pi
	slaughter   in  many   WICHA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the slaughter'

(4)	*owichakte el  ota       wa-kte-pi
	slaughter     in  many   WA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the slaughter'

These examples, contra Shaw (1980), might be taken as
proving my intuition about the non-animate reference
of wa-. Thus, wicha-, rather than wa-, codes
non-specific animate PATs.
The form wawokiya 'to help people with something' in
my previous post, however, remains a grain in the
ointment. My speaker feels that in this case, wa-
indeed expresses the notion of 'people in general'.


> > h�    thok�ya   ptebl�s^ka   ki   wich�-kte-pi
> > that  first     cattle       DEF  3PL.PAT-kill-PL
> >
> > na    wa-ph�ta-pi
> > and   WA-butcher-PL
> > 'first they killed the cows and butchered them'
> >
>
> I would have expected wicha-phata-pi rather than
> wa-phata. Could the sentence
> mean something like, �they killed the cows and then
> they did some butchering�?

This is exactly how I would translate it.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Dec 23 15:08:44 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:08:44 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <TUE.23.DEC.2003.090844.0600.>

How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
meaning.

Or maybe not.

> (2) *okichize el  ota       wa-kte-pi
> war           in  many  WA-kill-PL
> 'many were killed in the war'

> (4) *owichakte el  ota       wa-kte-pi
> slaughter     in  many   WA-kill-PL
> 'many were killed in the slaughter'

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Dec 28 15:43:15 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:43:15 -0600
Subject: Sunday evening television.
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.094315.0600.>

I see that ABC television is advertising a TV movie entitled "Dream Keeper" for
this evening.  I don't know if it will contain any spoken Lakota or even if the
stories will be accurate.  But unless you want to watch "Die Hard" for the third
time, this may be the best bet for the evening.  The ABC trailer for the movie
reads:  "While driving through South Dakota, a Lakota recounts legends and
stories to a 16-year-old."  One of the Hollywood reviewers writing for the local
paper here yesterday liked it.

Bob


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 28 16:59:44 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:59:44 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <001001c3c966$bb01cb50$08b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.085944.0800.>

--- "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
> How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
> the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
> the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> meaning.

I asked my speaker to translate this. She gave me:

okichize         el  ota  wicha-kte-pi
battle/slaughter in  many 3PL.PAT-kill-PL

The reaction I got when bringing up

okichize el ota wa-kte-pi

as a possible alternative translation was immediate
and vigorous rejection. But I suspect that in other
Siouan languages, wa- or its equivalents might be
acceptable in such contexts. It could be that
functional shifts have taken place across Siouan
regarding wa-.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From munro at ucla.edu  Sun Dec 28 18:25:55 2003
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:25:55 -0800
Subject: Sunday evening television.
In-Reply-To: <006601c3cd59$7094cfd0$2ab5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.102555.0800.>

I went to a screening of a 2-hour version of the miniseries last month
(the interim director of our American Indian Studies Center, Hanay
Geiogamah (a Kiowa professor of Theater Arts), was involved with the
production, and we heard a discussion by Halmi and a number of the stars
afterwards). My husband and I both enjoyed the film quite a lot. Some
aspects of the main plot are a bit predictable, I guess, but the acting
is very good and it's certainly the most Indian actors you'll see on
mainstream TV for a while. I don't recall much Indian language in it --
but it's a nice concept; we recommend it. The stories are not just
Lakhota, but also Kiowa, Mohawk, and a number of others.

Pam

R. Rankin wrote:

>I see that ABC television is advertising a TV movie entitled "Dream Keeper" for
>this evening.  I don't know if it will contain any spoken Lakota or even if the
>stories will be accurate.  But unless you want to watch "Die Hard" for the third
>time, this may be the best bet for the evening.  The ABC trailer for the movie
>reads:  "While driving through South Dakota, a Lakota recounts legends and
>stories to a 16-year-old."  One of the Hollywood reviewers writing for the local
>paper here yesterday liked it.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Dec 28 19:51:21 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:51:21 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.135121.0600.>

> > How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
> > the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
> > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> > meaning.

> The reaction I got when bringing up

> okichize el ota wa-kte-pi

> as a possible alternative translation was immediate
> and vigorous rejection.

that's interesting, OK.  I wonder if the sentence with WA- could mean anything
in any context.  I still find it curious that it can't refer to killing with the
particular direct object removed.  Maybe something like "there was killing here
and there" or the like.  I guess 'kill' pretty much automatically implies an
animate obj. though.

Bob


From napshawin at msn.com  Sun Dec 28 23:35:46 2003
From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:35:46 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.173546.0600.>

"THERE WAS A LOT OF KILLING IN THE WAR/SLAUGHTER."
Possible translations.
Wichakasota pi or pelo.
Means a slaughter. All were killed.
"there was a lot of killing in the war."
Okichize ekta ota wichakte pi or pelo.
Ol-ota wichaktepi okichize el.
Okichize wan el ota wichakte pelo.
Violet Catches, miye


>From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>
>Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
>Subject: Re: animate wa-
>Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:51:21 -0600
>
> > > How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
> > > the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> > > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
> > > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> > > meaning.
>
> > The reaction I got when bringing up
>
> > okichize el ota wa-kte-pi
>
> > as a possible alternative translation was immediate
> > and vigorous rejection.
>
>that's interesting, OK.  I wonder if the sentence with WA- could mean
>anything
>in any context.  I still find it curious that it can't refer to killing
>with the
>particular direct object removed.  Maybe something like "there was killing
>here
>and there" or the like.  I guess 'kill' pretty much automatically implies
>an
>animate obj. though.
>
>Bob
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet
access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Dec 29 15:24:16 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:24:16 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <MON.29.DEC.2003.092416.0600.>

Many thanks for that yelo!

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "CATCHES VIOLET" <napshawin at msn.com>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: animate wa-


> "THERE WAS A LOT OF KILLING IN THE WAR/SLAUGHTER."
> Possible translations.
> Wichakasota pi or pelo.
> Means a slaughter. All were killed.
> "there was a lot of killing in the war."
> Okichize ekta ota wichakte pi or pelo.
> Ol-ota wichaktepi okichize el.
> Okichize wan el ota wichakte pelo.
> Violet Catches, miye


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 29 22:49:22 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:49:22 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-F21ZjyhuvS53rK00084ac8@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <MON.29.DEC.2003.144922.0800.>

Yes, this is very helpful indeed.
Wicha- all over the place -- rather than wa-.

Philamayaye
Regina

--- CATCHES VIOLET <napshawin at msn.com> wrote:
> "THERE WAS A LOT OF KILLING IN THE WAR/SLAUGHTER."
> Possible translations.
> Wichakasota pi or pelo.
> Means a slaughter. All were killed.
> "there was a lot of killing in the war."
> Okichize ekta ota wichakte pi or pelo.
> Ol-ota wichaktepi okichize el.
> Okichize wan el ota wichakte pelo.
> Violet Catches, miye
>
>
> >From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>
> >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> >To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> >Subject: Re: animate wa-
> >Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:51:21 -0600
> >
> > > > How might one say "There was a lot of killing
> in
> > > > the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> > > > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to
> see
> > > > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> > > > meaning.
> >
> > > The reaction I got when bringing up
> >
> > > okichize el ota wa-kte-pi
> >
> > > as a possible alternative translation was
> immediate
> > > and vigorous rejection.
> >
> >that's interesting, OK.  I wonder if the sentence
> with WA- could mean
> >anything
> >in any context.  I still find it curious that it
> can't refer to killing
> >with the
> >particular direct object removed.  Maybe something
> like "there was killing
> >here
> >and there" or the like.  I guess 'kill' pretty much
> automatically implies
> >an
> >animate obj. though.
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Take advantage of our limited-time introductory
> offer for dial-up Internet
> access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 31 08:48:01 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:48:01 -0700
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <20031229224922.6587.qmail@web40004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.014801.0700.>

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> Yes, this is very helpful indeed. Wicha- all over the place -- rather
> than wa-.

I've been rather caught up in Christmas and family matters, so I'm just
catching up.  However, one question that has been nagging at me here.
I've always thought of wic^ha as being an animate (or, better, "human"?)
third person plural object marker, an inflection, with wa serving as the
indefinite object marker - essentially derivational rather than
inflectional - and covering the full range of human to inanimate
"indefinite" objects (or patients?).  However, it appears to me from the
discussion that, while wic^ha does have that "definite object"
inflectional role, wic^ha and wa also act as a pair in the area of
"indefinite objects," with wic^ha covering the human cases, and wa the
rest.

My question then is whether this corrected is something Dakotanists have
always been aware of, and I have missed, even though like a typical
Siouanist I tend to approach the family through Boas & Deloria, or is this
something that Dakotanists are just coming to terms with, too?I take it
from Linda's remarks that Dakotanists are at least aware of some examples
where was occurs in place of expected wic^ha?

I can say that in Omaha-Ponca it appears to me that wa there covers the
whole range of wic^ha and wa uses.  From what little I understand of the
rest of Dhegiha and of Winnebago-Chiwere, I think things are similar
there, too, though perhaps with some significant differences of detail in
Winnebago-Chiwere.  But, if, as I have always assumed, wic^ha is a Dakotan
innovation, replacing some uses of wa, then maybe this would account for
any residual exceptional uses of wa preserved lexically in Dakotan?

In addition, this insight into wic^ha, whether it is new or merely new to
me, might help to clarify whether wa in nominalizations acts as "head
marker" (or mark of nominalization) or merely occurs to code an indefinite
patient which occurs within the frame of the nominalization.  If the
latter, then we would presumably expect to find wic^ha for indefinite
human patients in nominalizations, instead of wa, which, in fact, we do in
forms like wic^ha'khipi 'robbery', wic^ha'kic^opi 'invitation',
wic^ha'ktepi 'killing', wic^ha'k?upi 'giving', etc.

'Murder(er)' is a convenient example here, because kill is straightforward
derivationally and a more or less canonical transitive verb.  Here I see
that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte 'murderer' and for
the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'.  Interestingly, for the active
verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) and also, with
locative incorporands thi'lkte/thi'lwakte and thio'kte/thio'wakte.
Apologies for putting Bruce in the spot, here, but he's a lot more
explicit about morphology than Buechel or Riggs.  Buechel does include an
enttry thi'wic^hakte 'murderer; to commit murder', which might or might
not suggest thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte instead, but perhaps his thi'kte entry
implies thi'kte/thi'wakte as I have always assumed it does?

A question this immediately raises, is whether examples in texts or other
data suggest that the range of uses of wic^ha has been expanding
historically at the expense of wa?  Is thi'wic^hakte - as a particular
example of wic^ha use - replacing thi'wakte in nominalizations or
indefinite object cases?  If so, we'd probably expect wa in older examples
where today we find wic^ha.  We might find some "newer" pattern uses in
older materials, too, or at least this is the case in Omaha-Ponca for
other innovations:  modern day uses tend to occur sporadically in earlier
materials, too.  An example would be the modern practice of inflecting
daNbe 'to see' doubly as attaN'be 'I ...', dhas^taN'be 'you ...'.  Mostly
Dorsey reports ttaN'be, s^taNbe, but a few speakers in his day were using
the "modern" forms.  It might be a bit teleological to say "using them
already."  Perhaps with a large enough sample size any somewhat unusual
verb might be found at least sometimes doubly inflected in the pattern
regular + irregular - at any point in Omaha-Ponca linguistic history.
Double inflection certainly occurs sporadically in varying degrees
throughout Siouan, with various verbs or classes of verbs.  But in the
case of Dakotan wic^ha we have something specific and unique and connected
exclusively with Dakotan.  We have at least 0 and n to draw a line
through.

JEK


From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk  Mon Dec  1 18:43:21 2003
From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:43:21 +0000
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <MON.1.DEC.2003.184321.0000.>

Folks:

As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas R
Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least some
of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words ending
in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but I
may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING like
that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.

Anthony


From parksd at indiana.edu  Mon Dec  1 19:20:17 2003
From: parksd at indiana.edu (Parks, Douglas R.)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <MON.1.DEC.2003.142017.0500.>

Anthony,

It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but the
"Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like it.
My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I listened
again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)

That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a TV
serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii'," which
means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not surprising,
though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.

Doug



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Dances with Wolves

Folks:

As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas R
Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least some
of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words ending
in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but I
may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING like
that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.

Anthony


From bi1 at soas.ac.uk  Tue Dec  2 11:13:37 2003
From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:13:37 -0000
Subject: Dances with Wolves
In-Reply-To: <52BA675BF5A226458392EB21207B522A525465@iu-mssg-mbx06.exchange.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.111337.0000.>

Sorry, but why does the nature of Pawnee and Arikara lead to it
becoming gibberish in films.  I'm fascinated
Bruce

On 1 Dec 2003 at 14:20, Parks, Douglas R. wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
Send reply to:  	siouan at lists.colorado.edu
From:           	"Parks, Douglas R." <parksd at indiana.edu>
To:             	<siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Subject:        	RE: Dances with Wolves

> Anthony,
>
> It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but the
> "Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like it.
> My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I listened
> again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)
>
> That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a TV
> serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
> playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii'," which
> means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
> sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
> Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not surprising,
> though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://mail.giantcompany.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Dances with Wolves
>
> Folks:
>
> As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas R
> Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least some
> of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
> something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words ending
> in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but I
> may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING like
> that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.
>
> Anthony
>
>


From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk  Tue Dec  2 12:24:28 2003
From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:24:28 +0000
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.122428.0000.>

It may have something to do with people's difficulties in finding
speakers of the language who can coach others for the purposes of syaing
their lies in the relevant language.

Remember that Michael Blake's novel fratured Comanches rather than
Lakhotas as the tribe that Dunbar settled among. I do wonder f the
switch was made because it was easier to find a Lakota-speaker to coach
people in dialogue than a Comanche speaker.  (Though John Ford must have
found one of the latter during the filming of The Searchers.)

Anthony

>>> bi1 at soas.ac.uk 02/12/2003 11:13:37 >>>
Sorry, but why does the nature of Pawnee and Arikara lead to it
becoming gibberish in films.  I'm fascinated
Bruce

On 1 Dec 2003 at 14:20, Parks, Douglas R. wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
Send reply to:  	siouan at lists.colorado.edu
From:           	"Parks, Douglas R." <parksd at indiana.edu>
To:             	<siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Subject:        	RE: Dances with Wolves

> Anthony,
>
> It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but
the
> "Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like
it.
> My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I
listened
> again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)
>
> That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a
TV
> serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
> playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii',"
which
> means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
> sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
> Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not
surprising,
> though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://mail.giantcompany.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Dances with Wolves
>
> Folks:
>
> As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas
R
> Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least
some
> of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
> something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words
ending
> in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but
I
> may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING
like
> that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.
>
> Anthony
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Dec  2 14:47:01 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:47:01 -0600
Subject: Dances with Wolves
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.084701.0600.>

My impression is that there are no more fluent
Pawnee speakers and precious few if any Rees.  I
can't remember who told me that though.

> Remember that Michael Blake's novel fratured
Comanches rather than
> Lakhotas as the tribe that Dunbar settled among.
I do wonder f the
> switch was made because it was easier to find a
Lakota-speaker to coach
> people in dialogue than a Comanche speaker.
(Though John Ford must have
> found one of the latter during the filming of
The Searchers.)

And the real Lt. Dunbar was with the Pawnees.

Bob


From warr0120 at umn.edu  Tue Dec  2 14:59:40 2003
From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:59:40 CST
Subject: Dances with Wolves, special edition dvd
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.085940.CST.>

If you want a lot of information on the movie, check out the recently
released special edition dvd (may 2003). First of all, the movie has an
extra HOUR of footage, so it's now four hours long! Lots more historical
setting, more language scenes, more of lakhota culture, all around better.
There's two documentaries included - one from when the movie was made and a
new one. But for backround you can't beat the director's commentary. You
get to listen (if you want) to Kevin Costner and producer Jim Wilson talk
for four hours about the movie as you watch it: how it was made, the
script, the filming locations (almost entirely South Dakota: it was the
best/only place to get a large herd of buffalo to do good acting), the
actors, the language and culture, how to not get run over by a buffalo... I
don't think they ever commented on what the "pawnee" guys were speaking.

I paid $20 for it, and I bet some video stores will have it too. And while
you're out shopping pick up Atanarjuat (Fast Runner), an inuit film of a
traditional inuit story entirely in inuktitut and with all inuit actors,
and Whale Rider, a maori film - easily the most inspirational movie I've
ever seen (make sure your kids see it too). But watch Atanarjuat first,
cause you'll need the New Zealand weather to warm you up after all that
time in the arctic.


Pat Warren


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Tue Dec  2 15:13:23 2003
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:13:23 -0500
Subject: Dances with Wolves
In-Reply-To: <sfcc8491.092@emma.edgehill.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.101323.0500.>

According to a companion book to the film, S. Dakota was chosen because there
was a large buffalo herd there. (Even the Civil War scenes were shot there, and
trees  and grass were spray-painted to make it look like the southeast.) Perhaps
the location dictated the shift from Comanche to Lakota.  As noted in earlier
messages, there were only two fluent Dakotan speakers in the cast, Doris Leader
Charge (Lakota) who served as the language coach, and Floyd Red Crow Westerman
(Dakota).  Incidentally, most of the  scenes with more authentic Lakota speech
were cut for the theater version, but have been restored in the director's cut
(4 hrs. long, but with the virtue of allowing skipping to the restored village
scenes where the two fluent speakers have more extended conversations with each
other.)

Linda

Quoting Anthony Grant <Granta at edgehill.ac.uk>:

> It may have something to do with people's difficulties in finding
> speakers of the language who can coach others for the purposes of syaing
> their lies in the relevant language.
>
> Remember that Michael Blake's novel fratured Comanches rather than
> Lakhotas as the tribe that Dunbar settled among. I do wonder f the
> switch was made because it was easier to find a Lakota-speaker to coach
> people in dialogue than a Comanche speaker.  (Though John Ford must have
> found one of the latter during the filming of The Searchers.)
>
> Anthony
>
> >>> bi1 at soas.ac.uk 02/12/2003 11:13:37 >>>
> Sorry, but why does the nature of Pawnee and Arikara lead to it
> becoming gibberish in films.  I'm fascinated
> Bruce
>
> On 1 Dec 2003 at 14:20, Parks, Douglas R. wrote:
>
> Date sent:      	Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:20:17 -0500
> Send reply to:  	siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> From:           	"Parks, Douglas R." <parksd at indiana.edu>
> To:             	<siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Subject:        	RE: Dances with Wolves
>
> > Anthony,
> >
> > It has been several years since I watched Dances with Wolves, but
> the
> > "Pawnees" in the movie were not speaking Pawnee--or anything like
> it.
> > My impression was that the speech is nonsense.  (But maybe if I
> listened
> > again I might hear a Pawnee word or two.)
> >
> > That is also the case for most of the Arikara speech that occurs in a
> TV
> > serial on Custer that aired five or six years ago.  The character
> > playing Bloody Knife (Custer's favorite scout) says, "Kaakii',"
> which
> > means "no."  The English subtitles, however, gave two or three long
> > sentences for Kaakii'.  The other Arikara is jibberish.  Ditto the
> > Arikara in the sequel to "A Man Called Horse."  That's not
> surprising,
> > though, given the nature of Arikara and Pawnee.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> > Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> > http://mail.giantcompany.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:43 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Dances with Wolves
> >
> > Folks:
> >
> > As far as I could tell, based on my reading of the works of Douglas
> R
> > Parks, James R Murie, Gene Weltfish and Ferdinand Hayden.at least
> some
> > of  the Pawnees in the film were speaking Pawnee. I recall earing
> > something like /tawit/ 'three' and also a large number of words
> ending
> > in /-ks/. I think I heard /tsahriks/ 'person' in there somewhere, but
> I
> > may be mistaken.  Plus the phonology of the language was NOTHING
> like
> > that either of Lakhota or Cherokee.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


From jkyle at ku.edu  Tue Dec  2 18:19:59 2003
From: jkyle at ku.edu (John Kyle)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:19:59 -0600
Subject: Dances with Wolves, special edition dvd
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.121959.0600.>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Warren" <warr0120 at umn.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Dances with Wolves, special edition dvd


>
> . And while you're out shopping pick up [...] Whale Rider, a maori film -
easily the most inspirational movie I've
> ever seen (make sure your kids see it too). But watch Atanarjuat first,
> cause you'll need the New Zealand weather to warm you up after all that
> time in the arctic.
>
> Pat Warren
>
Not to go too far off topic... but I agree that Whale Rider is one of the
best movies I've seen.  I urge everyone to watch it.

John Kyle
jkyle at ku.edu

**************************************
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
        - Pres. Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 19:43:23 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:43:23 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.114323.0800.>


Dear Siouanists,



It all started with some innocent work on noun incorporation in Lakota. In this context, my Lakota speaker came up with forms such as



(1)        thi-w-?-wa-'uN

house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint

(both components of the verb i'?N 'to paint' (also pronounced iy?N) are glossed by 'paint')

'I paint the house'



This example contrasts with

(2)        thi-'?-wa-'uN

            house-paint-1SG.AG-paint

'I paint the house'



The structural difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) contains the non-specific patient marker *w-*, whose full form is *wa-*. But there is also a subtle semantic difference between the two examples: according to my Lakota speaker, (1) actually means 'I paint the house in many areas', while (2) simply means 'I paint the house'. Syntactically, the remarkable thing about (1) is that this example admits two affixal objects: *thi-* 'house' and *w-* 'non-specific object'. But what puzzled me the most was the translation of *w-* by 'in many areas'. We get more of this in (3) and (4):



(3)            waks^?-w-i'uN

            plate-WA-paint

            'to paint different kinds of plates'



(4)            waks^?-'i'uN

            plate-paint

            'to paint plates', *'to paint different kinds of plates'



Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:



(5)        it?wapi ki   h?  wa-w-?-wa-'uN

            picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint

            'I am painting that picture with different colors'



The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors' here. This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:



(6)        s?pa w-?-wa-'uN

            black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint

            'I paint it black'



ungrammatical:

(7)        s?pa wa-w-?-wa-'uN

            black   WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint

            'I paint it black'



The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-* and the color term *s?pa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.

Unfortunately, so far, I was unable to identify the exact extra-linguistic referent of *w-* in (5) and (6).



Still, all this seems to imply that in the case of examples (1), (3) and (5), *wa-* has a semantic connotation that could be rendered by the gloss 'variety object', rather than simply by 'things, stuff, etc.' as is usually done for *wa-* (which is of course appropriate in most other cases). The following examples should bring this out even more clearly:



(8)        wa-y?ha

            WA-have

            'he has all kinds of things'



(9)        w?-ha

            WA+YU-have

            'he has things/everything (like a rich person)'



The form *w?-* in (6) results from contraction of *wa-* with the instrumental prefix *yu-*. *w?-* conveys the meaning of "regular" non-specific patient, while *way?-* seems to indicate a variety object. Not every verb that starts with *yu-*, however, admits the two contrasting expression formats for *wa-* that we see in (8) and (9): For *yu'?chetu* 'to make it right', there is only *way?'echetu*, but not *w?'echetu*. So far, all tested yu-verbs that do not have alternating *wa-*- forms have a *way?-*-form but not a *w?-*-form, with one exception: *y?ta* 'to eat'. *w?ta* is fine but *way?ta* is not grammatical. Plus, not in every case in which there are alternating *wa-*-forms, corresponding meaning distinctions could be elicited.

A further argument for keeping *w?-* and *way?-* forms apart, not only semantically, can be derived from the fact that for 1st and 2nd person, *w?-* and *way?-* forms inflect differently:



(10)      wa-bl?s^taN

            WA-1SG.AG.finish

            'I finish a lot of things'



(11)      w?-wa-s^taN

            WA+YU-1SG.AG-finish

            'I am done'



The two main questions which are implicit in these data are:

(a) Does a distinction between a marker for "plain" non-specific object vs. a similar or identical marker for variety object surface in other Siouan languages as well? What are the exact semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in other Siouan languages? Are there Siouan languages in which the etymological equivalent of Lakota *wa-* functions to code the notion of variety object only?

(b) On the assumption that the two meanings of Lakota *wa-* ("plain" non-specific object vs. 'variety object') are historically connected, which meaning is older? Grammaticalization theory, via the concept of semantic bleaching, would predict that the meaning 'variety object' is older than the meaning 'non-specific object' since it can be argued that the former meaning is less abstract than the latter. But generally, I don't care much for deductive reasoning of this sort, I'd rather draw my conclusions on the basis of data from related languages. That's why I'd like to see some "cross-Siouan" data on this.



Best,

Regina



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031210/ee404493/attachment.htm>

From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 10 20:14:39 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:39 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.141439.0600.>

Hi Regina,

These are interesting and vexed questions.  I
imagine others will have a variety of things to
say about them.  Unfortunately Dakotan is one of
the few Siouan languages where it is possible to
really experiment with these concepts.  My
impression from your examples is that your
evidence tends to support David's notion that wa-
is really a valence-changing device rather than a
prefix that marks a direct object that is simply
non-specific.  In other words, the "variety"
translations are speakers' attempts to somehow
convey the fact that these verb forms are actually
INtransitive.   Wa- is just a detransitivizer in
these examples.  This means that, in the sentences
with an incorporated thi 'house' and also the
detransitivizing wa-, you don't have two
objects -- rather you have NO objects.
Incorporated nouns can't serve as arguments of the
verb, and wa- confirms that the verb is
intransitive.  This is relatively close to what we
get in English with the answer to the question
"What did you spend yesterday doing?"  Answer: "I
was house-painting."  'House' isn't the object;
the verb is intransitive.  We can't say *"I
house-painted yesterday", but in Siouan you can.
And "I house-painted" is different in transitivity
from "I painted a/the house."

The translations with "all over" or "different
kinds of" are a bit misleading.  The Dakotan form
there, it seems to me, is just "I plate-painted."
or "I house-painted."  The "in many places" or
"different kinds of" meaning may be implied, but
it is not stated, since the V is simply
intransitive.

> (a) Does a distinction between a marker for
"plain" non-specific object vs. a similar or
identical marker for variety object surface in
other Siouan languages as well? What are the exact
semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in
other Siouan languages? Are there Siouan languages
in which the etymological equivalent of Lakota
*wa-* functions to code the notion of variety
object only?

In most Siouan languages there is more than one
prefix with the shape WA-.  We will need to be
careful with our examples here.  Luckily in
Dakotan there is no 1st plural object prefix with
that form, as there is in Dhegiha.  Some of the
prefixes may have vowel length distinctions too.

> (b) On the assumption that the two meanings of
Lakota *wa-* ("plain" non-specific object vs.
'variety object') are historically connected,
which meaning is older? Grammaticalization theory,
via the concept of semantic bleaching, would
predict that the meaning 'variety object' is older
than the meaning 'non-specific object' since it
can be argued that the former meaning is less
abstract than the latter.

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there is
really such a difference in Dakotan or whether it
is just in the speakers' English translations, as
they struggle to "explain" how such verb forms can
be rendered into English.  They have a problem
because English requires a transitive translation
of a grammatically intransitive verb.

Bob


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 20:47:57 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:47:57 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <004101c3bf5a$51ae38c0$1cb5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.134757.0700.>

As you might surmise, the email from Regina was not sent out of the blue;
she and I have been debating this for a couple of weeks now.  I haven't
been able to come up with anything as neat as Bob's theory, however, and I
think he makes very good sense.  I guess I was misled by my exprience with
Wichita noun incorporation, where the incorporated object usually IS an
argument of the verb.

It is certainly the case that Lakota speakers manipulate valence readily.
Another example is a noun like wakhalyapi 'coffee'.  (I think I have said
this before, so if I'm repeating myself to you, please forgive me -- maybe
there is someone on the list who hasn't heard it.) The root is stative
khat- 'be hot'; it is made causative with -ya, thereby adding an agent, so
now it has two arguments, viz. 'S/he heated it.'.  Then you add the -pi,
which is here (I claim -- not uncontroversial) a passive, effectively
deleting the agent again, but now the remaining argument is the object of
a transitive verb, not the subject of stative verb.  The construction at
this point means something like 'it has been heated'.  Finally, you add
the wa- to take away that remaining argument, and you have a zero-argument
construction only approximately rendered in English with 'heated stuff'.

David

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:

> Hi Regina,
 My impression from your examples is that your evidence tends to support
> David's notion that wa- is really a valence-changing device rather than
> a prefix that marks a direct object that is simply non-specific.  In
> other words, the "variety" translations are speakers' attempts to
> somehow convey the fact that these verb forms are actually INtransitive.
> Wa- is just a detransitivizer in these examples.  This means that, in
> the sentences with an incorporated thi 'house' and also the
> detransitivizing wa-, you don't have two objects -- rather you have NO
> objects. Incorporated nouns can't serve as arguments of the verb, and
> wa- confirms that the verb is intransitive.  This is relatively close to
> what we get in English with the answer to the question "What did you
> spend yesterday doing?"  Answer: "I was house-painting."  'House' isn't
> the object; the verb is intransitive.  We can't say *"I house-painted
> yesterday", but in Siouan you can. And "I house-painted" is different in
> transitivity from "I painted a/the house."


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 21:18:42 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:18:42 -0700
Subject: Inflecting 'to paint'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.141842.0700.>

In the course of our discussions of the wa- that Regina has just written
about, I noticed some strange behavior in the morphology of this verb 'to
paint, to spread on, to annoint' and wondered whether other Siouanists
have either parallel examples or some more insightful explanation of the
facts than "analogy".
	The verb may or may not have the initial w-, as Regina points out.
Otherwise, there seem to be two pronunciations: i'uN and iyuN.  Buechel
records only the variant with -y-, but Regina's speaker alternates freely.
	At this point, we seem to have a possible epenthetic /y/
optionally replacing a glottal stop, or a glottal stop replacing a /y/ --
something that doesn't bother me much, though I can't think of any other
places where that happens.
	The problem is that the first person form is iwayuN or iwa'uN,
plural uNkiyuNpi according to Buechel, but when the wiyuN form is used,
Neva (our speaker) says it has to be wiyuNk'uNpi or wi'uNk'uNpi.  Now the
y/' alternation is transferred to BEFORE the pronominal affix, and the
root consonant seems to be unambiguously a glottal stop.
	Questions: is the etymology of this word i 'instrument' plus 'uN
'use'?  Evidence for yes: the organic glottal evidenced by the first
person plural inflected forms, and the fact that the first person plural
goes in front of the verb if there is no w-.  Evidence for no: the first
person singular prefix is -wa-, not -m-.
	Alternative: the /y/ is organic, and the verb has nothing to do
with 'use'. Evidence for: Buechel's consistent transcription with /y/;
evidence against: the first person plural forms of the w- verb, where the
y/' alternation occurs between different morphemes, albeit in the same
phonemic (not phonetic, not necessarily phonological, but phonemic)
environment (i_uN).  I think the apparent uniqueness of the glide
alternation here is also evidence against this.  Moreover, if the /y/ were
part of the verb stem, then the correct first person singular inflection
(before the nasal vowel) should be either -m- or -mn- replacing the /y/.
	Alternative: the verb stem is i'uN, but 'uN is not the 'use' verb.
There is a verb 'uN that inflects wa'uN, uNk'uNpi, but it means 'live,
exist', and I rule it out on semantic grounds. So this theory would
imply that there is a third -'uN root, perhaps attested in only this
verb (with the instrumental prefix, supposedly).  This accounts
for everything, I think, except the phonetically plausible y/'
alternation.
	Question: what does anyone else think is the phonological UR of
this verb stem?  Is there etymological data that might give us a clue?

David

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


From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc  Wed Dec 10 21:01:42 2003
From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:01:42 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.150142.0600.>

Hi gang:
I will let you linguists battle it out.
I will stay with William K. Powers explanation.
Wa is a noun marker.
Examples:
Wapes'a =not red hair but a roach headdress.
Wahminake = not something in the wait belt but a bunch of braided grass or
later the Crow Bustle.
Waanatan =not some one who is rushing forward but Chief Charger of the
Sisseton's (he was half Yanktonai and half Sisseton, he stayed with his
mothers people)
Later,
Louie


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 22:58:53 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:58:53 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <004101c3bf5a$51ae38c0$1cb5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.145853.0800.>

Hi Bob:

You brought up something that I haven't thought of yet
-- explaining the structures I have via the
detransitivizing function of *wa-*. But let's see how
this works in detail in my examples. In

(1)	thi-w-?-wa-'uN
        house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint

the starting point is the transitive verb *i'u`N* 'to
paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT. *wa-*
as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the PAT.
So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus PAT,
i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with incorporated
*thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in (1)
there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the additional
PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*? In
your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to paint'
minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1] for PAT.

But we can take it even further. My speaker also gave
me

(2)	w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
        'they ask around about him'

and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that, after
three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations, we'd
get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude that
rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-* functions
to add slots, at least in some cases.

Regina






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:10:07 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:10:07 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031210194323.69568.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.161007.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> (1) thi-w-?-wa-'uN
>     house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint the house'
>
> (2) thi-'?-wa-'uN
>     house-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint the house'
>
> The structural difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) contains the
> non-specific patient marker *w-*, whose full form is *wa-*. But there is
> also a subtle semantic difference between the two examples: according to
> my Lakota speaker, (1) actually means 'I paint the house in many areas',
> while (2) simply means 'I paint the house'.

I wonder if this wouldn't account for the situation.  Suppose that i?uN
'to paint' takes two objects, the thing painted, and the paint or maybe
(also?) the place on the thing painted that gets painted.  The paint or
place painted is governed, essentially, by the i- "locative," while the
thing painted is governed by the whole stem (or maybe just by ?uN?).  If
you omit the w- and use thi?i?uN then thi is clearly the thing painted and
the unspecified paint is understood to be one specific color (or place,
presumably the whole thing).  If you include w(a)- to produce thiwi?uN,
then this w(a)- necessarily refers to the colors painted with or places
painted on.  Or perhaps we should say that w(a)- doesn't so much refer to
these places and indicate that they are unspecified.

This is the sort of usage of wa-, of course, that must underlie the use of
wa- as a plural marker in other Siouan languages.

> Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:
>
> (5) it?wapi ki   h?  wa-w-?-wa-'uN
>     picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I am painting that picture with different colors'
>
> The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors'
> here.

What puzzles me here is that while I'd agree that one wa- refers to the
colors, I'd say the second wa- was the thing painted, but I didn't think a
wa- object marker could be combined with an NP for the reference.

> This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:
>
> (6) s?pa w-?-wa-'uN
>     black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint it black'
>
> (7) *s?pa wa-w-?-wa-'uN
>     black   WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint it black'
>
> The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-*
> and the color term *s?pa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.

I'd have said that (7) was ungrammatical because sapa acted as the 'paint
or place painted' object while the w(a)- acted as the thing painted
object.

> The following examples should bring this out even more clearly:
>
> (8)  wa-y?ha
>      WA-have
>      'he has all kinds of things'
>
> (9)  w?-ha
>      WA+YU-have
>      'he has things/everything (like a rich person)'

> The form *w?-* in (6) results from contraction of *wa-* with the
> instrumental prefix *yu-*. *w?-* conveys the meaning of "regular"
> non-specific patient, while *way?-* seems to indicate a variety object.
> Not every verb that starts with *yu-*, however, admits the two
> contrasting expression formats ...  So far, all tested yu-verbs that do
> not have alternating *wa-*- forms have a *way?-*-form but not a
> *w?-*-form, with one exception: *y?ta* 'to eat'. *w?ta* is fine but
> *way?ta* is not grammatical.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily the same thing.  I think the usual
explanation is that the wo- contract forms are conservative and have less
transparent meanings, while the wa-yu- forms are regularized and
transparent.  The only wo-form that I was really aware of was wota, which
also has first person forms wa-ta A1 and ya-ta A2 (yu- missing).  I don't
think the other wo- contracts have this propert either, right?  This has
one comparable correspondent outside of Dakotan.  Winnebago has ruuc^,
inflected ha-c^ A1, ra-c^ A2.  I don't recall that there's anything
unusual about the *wa + ru with this stem, but I'll check.  As far as I
know, this is the only verb like this in Winnebago.

There may be something a bit unusual going on with 'eat', but perhaps the
rest of the examples are simply more transparent vs. less transparent
cases, rather than varietal objects?

> A further argument for keeping *w?-* and *way?-* forms apart, not only
> semantically, can be derived from the fact that for 1st and 2nd person,
> *w?-* and *way?-* forms inflect differently:
>
> (10)  wa-bl?s^taN
>       WA-1SG.AG.finish
>       'I finish a lot of things'
>
> (11)  w?-wa-s^taN
>       WA+YU-1SG.AG-finish
>       'I am done'

The pattern of inflection is interesting, since it suggests that once w-y-
contracts to wo- it becomes morphologically individual.  I suppose it
infixes because w- is not a permitted stem initial, leading to an infixing
template being selected.

> The two main questions which are implicit in these data are:
>
> (a) Does a distinction between a marker for "plain" non-specific object
> vs. a similar or identical marker for variety object surface in other
> Siouan languages as well?

Not to my knowledge.

> What are the exact semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in
> other Siouan languages?

In Dhegiha there are two wa- markers:  one acts like the usual perception
of wa- in Dakotan - a detransitivizer or valence reducer, with the
peculiarities we've discussed in the past - namely that it seems to be
more of an indefinite object (or subject) than an elimination of the slot
per se.  The other use in Dhegiha is analogous to wic^ha- in Dakotan - as
a third person plural object.  I'm not counting wa-a- as the patient form
of the inclusive marker.  That is, Dakotan uNk- equates to OP aNg- (A12)
and wa-a- (P12).

I've eliminated the other questions for now, since it seems like they
depend on a yes answer to the first one.


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 23:12:17 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:12:17 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031210225853.97654.qmail@web40004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.161217.0700.>

> Hi Bob:
>
> You brought up something that I haven't thought of yet
> -- explaining the structures I have via the
> detransitivizing function of *wa-*. But let's see how
> this works in detail in my examples. In
>
> (1)	thi-w-?-wa-'uN
>         house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>
> the starting point is the transitive verb *i'u`N* 'to
> paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT. *wa-*
> as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the PAT.
> So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus PAT,
> i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with incorporated
> *thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in (1)
> there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the additional
> PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*? In
> your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to paint'
> minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1] for PAT.


Sorry -- I only see one WA- prefix here; the other one is the first person
agent.




>
> But we can take it even further. My speaker also gave
> me
>
> (2)	w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
>         'they ask around about him'
>
> and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that, after
> three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations, we'd
> get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude that
> rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-* functions
> to add slots, at least in some cases.
>
Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix this time.  iyunga is
di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and wawiunga.  I don't know a
verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for wiwawiyungapi.  The thing
that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.

David




> Regina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Dec 10 23:22:22 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:22:22 -0700
Subject: addendum to previous note on wa-
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.162222.0700.>

Sorry -- I was too hasty in reporting on wiyunga and didn't clarify.
Iyunga is ditransitive, it means 'to ask someone something' and both
objects can be overt (he asked me my name).  Wiyunga, with one wa-,
deletes the non-animate object, so you get something like 'to
interrogate', a transitive verb.  wawiyunga then deletes that, and means
'to go around asking questions, to be nosy'.  My remarks about i'iyunga
from the previous message aren't affected by this.

David



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


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:25:55 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:25:55 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312101354270.21423@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.162555.0700.>

I omitted to mention that "spray-paint" verbs and their objects are rather
interesting in English, too.


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:32:56 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:32:56 -0600
Subject: Inflecting 'to paint'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.173256.0600.>

I'd have to say at the outset that analogy
probably IS the mechanism that has produced these
interesting verb forms.  But, that said, let me
repeat what I think I've said before on the list
(and if I haven't, I've said it elsewhere) about
/?uN/.  The comparative evidence shows very
clearly that this verb means 'do' (and in some
contexts 'be', or maybe they're homophones).  This
is true in every language that has it except
Dakotan.  'Do' is routinely conjugated /m-uN/ in
the 1st person with irregular forms in the other
persons as well.

Then the instrument prefix, /i-/ logically makes
the verb */i-?uN/ mean 'to do with', in other
words 'to use'.  In an ideal linguistic universe
it too would be irregular in exactly the same ways
as 'to do, be'.  In some languages this
conservative situation holds.  But Dakotan (alone)
has really "screwed the kitty" on this pair of
verbs.  It seems to have lost the instrumental
/i-/ and made the difference between 'do' and
'use' a matter of pronominal choice, so we have,
in the 1st person, wa?uN versus m-uN.  Loss of
/i-/ is inexplicable in Dakotan, but spread of the
regular pronominal set is analogical. Other
Mississippi Valley Siouan languages have kept the
conservative forms and not lost instrumental /i-/

Dakotan seems to have REapplied the instrumental
/i-/ to derive an entirely new verb with the
narrowed meaning 'to paint'.  But in Kaw the
verb(s) 'to paint' seem all to be reflexive
/?kkik?oN, ikkinoN/ 'paint'.  Clearly, they are
formed on the basis of */?oN/ 'do', and, equally
clearly, one verb above has the expected glottal
stop while the other has an epenthetic /-n-/, the
expected correspondent to the Dakotan /-y-/.  So
Dhegiha has this same problem.  Can any of the
Dakotan /-i-/ phonemes be considered a variant of
'reflexive'?  If so, Dakotan would match the
Dhegiha forms.  Beyond that, I haven't had a
chance to try to figure out what's what.

Bob

> In the course of our discussions of the wa- that
Regina has just written
> about, I noticed some strange behavior in the
morphology of this verb 'to
> paint, to spread on, to annoint' and wondered
whether other Siouanists
> have either parallel examples or some more
insightful explanation of the
> facts than "analogy".
> The verb may or may not have the initial w-, as
Regina points out.
> Otherwise, there seem to be two pronunciations:
i'uN and iyuN.  Buechel
> records only the variant with -y-, but Regina's
speaker alternates freely.
> At this point, we seem to have a possible
epenthetic /y/
> optionally replacing a glottal stop, or a
glottal stop replacing a /y/ --
> something that doesn't bother me much, though I
can't think of any other
> places where that happens.
> The problem is that the first person form is
iwayuN or iwa'uN,
> plural uNkiyuNpi according to Buechel, but when
the wiyuN form is used,
> Neva (our speaker) says it has to be wiyuNk'uNpi
or wi'uNk'uNpi.  Now the
> y/' alternation is transferred to BEFORE the
pronominal affix, and the
> root consonant seems to be unambiguously a
glottal stop.
> Questions: is the etymology of this word i
'instrument' plus 'uN
> 'use'?  Evidence for yes: the organic glottal
evidenced by the first
> person plural inflected forms, and the fact that
the first person plural
> goes in front of the verb if there is no w-.
Evidence for no: the first
> person singular prefix is -wa-, not -m-.
> Alternative: the /y/ is organic, and the verb
has nothing to do
> with 'use'. Evidence for: Buechel's consistent
transcription with /y/;
> evidence against: the first person plural forms
of the w- verb, where the
> y/' alternation occurs between different
morphemes, albeit in the same
> phonemic (not phonetic, not necessarily
phonological, but phonemic)
> environment (i_uN).  I think the apparent
uniqueness of the glide
> alternation here is also evidence against this.
Moreover, if the /y/ were
> part of the verb stem, then the correct first
person singular inflection
> (before the nasal vowel) should be either -m-
or -mn- replacing the /y/.
> Alternative: the verb stem is i'uN, but 'uN is
not the 'use' verb.
> There is a verb 'uN that inflects wa'uN,
uNk'uNpi, but it means 'live,
> exist', and I rule it out on semantic grounds.
So this theory would
> imply that there is a third -'uN root, perhaps
attested in only this
> verb (with the instrumental prefix, supposedly).
This accounts
> for everything, I think, except the phonetically
plausible y/'
> alternation.
> Question: what does anyone else think is the
phonological UR of
> this verb stem?  Is there etymological data that
might give us a clue?
>
> David
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 10 23:54:52 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:54:52 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.175452.0600.>

See below . . .

> You brought up something that I haven't thought
of yet
> -- explaining the structures I have via the
> detransitivizing function of *wa-*. But let's
see how
> this works in detail in my examples. In
>
> (1) thi-w-?-wa-'uN
>         house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>
> the starting point is the transitive verb
*i'u`N* 'to
> paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT.
*wa-*
> as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the
PAT.
> So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus
PAT,
> i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with
incorporated
> *thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in
(1)
> there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the
additional
> PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*?
In
> your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to
paint'
> minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1]
for PAT.
>
> But we can take it even further. My speaker also
gave
> me
>
> (2) w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
>         'they ask around about him'
>
> and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The
base
> verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that,
after
> three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
we'd
> get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude
that
> rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-*
functions
> to add slots, at least in some cases.

OK, I think this is where your grammaticalization
theory comes in.  But, personally, my tendency is
just to look at it in terms of linguistic change.
Grammar change is primarily analogical in its
mechanics, which means that not all aspects of the
grammar are changed at once -- it operates
piecemeal and often lexeme-by-lexeme.  And it may
well be the case that you'll be forced to analyze
some instances of wa- as valence reduction and
some as adding slots.  Functionally, this would
mean the morpheme has split and you now have two
wa- prefixes where there was one before.  I
haven't tried to trace all the developments of the
(various??) WA- prefixes in Mississippi Valley
Siouan, although John's note immediately preceding
this one, does part of that job.  This is why I
say we have to be very careful about just how many
WA's we posit and have to pay close attention to
which occurs in what verb.  it sounds like a good
dissertation topic to me.  :-)

In any event, these are all very interesting
forms.  Several of the 'paint' forms have
interestingly strange Dhegiha analogs, and it will
be interesting to see how it all works out.  My
tendency is to TRY to analyze each instance of
/wa-/ in terms of valence reduction, following
Mary Haas's dictum "We mustn't translate the
(target) language into English and then analyze
the English".  I think paying attention to that
explains the house and the plates in the painting
sentences.  Beyond that, my Dakota fails me, and
I'm giving up for the evening.  :-)

Bob


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Thu Dec 11 01:56:19 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:56:19 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.195619.0600.>

My working hypothesis is that a noun (or NP) in
front of a verb in MVS can be one of at least
three things.  It can be the subject you're
talking about (whether agent or patient); it can
be a type of object of the verb; or it can be a
qualifier that acts as an adverb on that verb.
The /wa-/ is a generalizer that can fill any of
these noun slots with respect to the verb.  It's
roughly the equivalent of the everted palm ("Use
your imagination to fill in the blank!") in our
body language, in contrast with the pointing
thrust of definite reference.

Filling in for an object, it functions as a
detransitivizer.  So if ?i?uN means 'paint it',
and thi-?i?uN means 'paint the house', with 'house'
as the object, and wi?uN (< wa-?i?uN) means
'paint things in general', or just 'paint', then
/wa-/ is acting as a detransitivizer by taking
the place of the expected or implied object noun.

But if we have the construction thi-wi?uN, I
think there are three possibilities to explain
the apparent double object.

  1.  The verb ?i?uN might expect two separate
      objects, as John has suggested.

  2.  The verb wi?uN might have diverged
      semantically from ?i?uN, so that it no
      longer is equivalent to *wa-?i?uN.  In
      this case, wi?uN might be reinterpreted
      into a transitive verb, that can take
      thi, 'house', as an object.

  3.  The thi in thi-wi?uN is a qualifying noun,
      not an object (could I say "valence"?) noun.
      It gives circumstantial information about
      the verbal action, and is effectively an
      adverb.  Thus:

          ?i?uN           thi-?i?uN
          VERB            OBJ-VERB
          'paint it'      'paint the house'

          wi?uN           thi-wi?uN
          WA-VERB         ADV-WA-VERB
          'paint'         'house-paint'

      I think this is essentially Bob's view, and
      I like it too.

Now we hit Regina's example (5):

> (5) it?wapi ki   h?  wa-w-?-wa-'uN
>     picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I am painting that picture with different colors'
>
> The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors'
> here.

This seems to present a problem for Possibility 3.
In third person:

      itowapi ki he wawi?uN
                 NP WA-WA-VERB
      'paint the picture with different colors'

The first WA would presumably represent a qualifier
that told the color of the painting action as in

> (6) s?pa w-?-wa-'uN
>     black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
>     'I paint it black'

or

      sapa wi?uN
       ADV WA-VERB
      'paint it black'

Filling in for the color qualifier, WA seems to
take on the specialized sense of "in various colors",
rather than "in some unspecified color".  This makes
sense.  But what is that WA just before the verb doing,
in either (5) or (6)?  It certainly doesn't represent
a subject, and the 'color' qualifier is handled by
the preceeding WA or an actual color term.  The object
in (5) is clearly the leading noun phrase, 'picture'.
Either there is a second object floating around here
(Possibility 1); or the detransitivized verb wi?uN
has been reinterpreted as transitive (Possibility 2);
or that WA has become a marker like an affixed pronoun
that can optionally be augmented in meaning by a free
noun phrase.  In the latter case, it would be pretty
much the same as the 'us' and 'them' affixed pronouns
in OP.

I wonder what Regina's informants would say about:

      */sapa ?i?uN/

and

      */itowapi ki he wi?uN/

Does throwing out the extra WA potentially cause
confusion?

Rory


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 02:08:34 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:08:34 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312101608380.8071@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.180834.0800.>

> >In (1)   thi-w-?-wa-'uN
> >         house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >
> > the starting point is the transitive verb *i'u`N*
> 'to
> > paint', which has valence slots for AG and PAT.
> *wa-*
> > as a detransitivizer functions to eliminate the
> PAT.
> > So *i'u`N* plus *wa-* yields 'to paint' minus PAT,
> > i.e. detransitivized 'to paint' (or, with
> incorporated
> > *thi-*, detransitivized 'house-paint'). But in (1)
> > there are two *wa-*affixes. Where is the
> additional
> > PAT slot that is eliminated by the second *wa-*?
> In
> > your equation, we'd get detransitivized 'to paint'
> > minus PAT, i.e. a verb with a valence of [-1] for
> PAT.
>
>
> Sorry -- I only see one WA- prefix here; the other
> one is the first person
> agent.
>

> Sorry -- I only see one WA- prefix here; the other
> one is the first person
> agent.

You're right, David -- I made a mistake here. The
example I actually meant to use here was (5) in my
first post. So how about this:

	it?wapi ki  h?   wa-w-?-wa-'uN
	picture the that WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
	'I am painting that picture with different
  colors'

How do we account for the *wa-*s in here?


> >
> > (2)	w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> > 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
> >         'they ask around about him'
> >
> > and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> > verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that,
> after
> > three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
> we'd
> > get a valence of [-2] for PAT.
> >
> Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix
> this time.  iyunga is
> di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and
> wawiunga.  I don't know a
> verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for
> wiwawiyungapi.  The thing
> that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.

I agree. So we're left with a [-1] valence for PAT in
this case.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 11 05:19:59 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:19:59 -0700
Subject: Inflecting 'to paint'
In-Reply-To: <001201c3bf76$04316ce0$14b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <WED.10.DEC.2003.221959.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:
> Dakotan seems to have REapplied the instrumental /i-/ to derive an
> entirely new verb with the narrowed meaning 'to paint'.  But in Kaw the
> verb(s) 'to paint' seem all to be reflexive /?kkik?oN, ikkinoN/ 'paint'.
> Clearly, they are formed on the basis of */?oN/ 'do', and, equally
> clearly, one verb above has the expected glottal stop while the other
> has an epenthetic /-n-/, the expected correspondent to the Dakotan
> /-y-/.

I checked across Mississippi Valley and found the following:

IO ?uN'=hi 'to paint (house, wall)' JGT:195  (also iwa' or uwa')

Ex.  hga   ?uN=ha=    hne khe
     white I paint it FUT DEC
     I'll paint it white

     This is a causative.

OP   ...kki?aN' 'to paint one's face; to paint oneself'
     kki?aN=...khidhe 'to cause someone to paint themself'
     (coloring agent) i'...kki?aN 'to paint oneself with (coloring agent)'

     These are reflexives, one causative.  Dorsey gives ? here, but I
     didn't notice ? in comparable environments except when it came from
     *k? or *x?, which is probably not the case with this stem.

No anomalies in inflection noted.

Otherwise a variety of other stems seem to be listed instead, apparently
in the sense of 'to paint (color) on (thing)', especially with roots -ha
and -wa, whereas these usages seem to be 'to paint (thing) with (color)'.

I also checked in some Dakotan dictionaries other than Buechel, and found:

Riggs i'yuN 'to use', e.g., hu i'yuN 'to use one's legs, to be on foot',
T[eton] 'to rub on, apply'.  See iuN, which seeing I found iuN' 'to rub
on, as ointment or soap', inflected iwauN, uNkiuNpi.

Ingham gives wi'yuNpi 'paint, colour' (the noun), i'yuN/i'wayuN 'to
paint', thi wi'yuN wic^has^a 'house painter'.

It strikes me that the accentuation of i'yuN is irregular, and differs
from i'yuN to iuN'.

I am unable to say whether *(ir)uN ~ (i)?uN 'to paint (with)' involves a
different root from *(i)?uN 'to do (with)'.  They are clearly either
confused with each other or related to each other.  I do feel that the PS
phonological status of *? in the glottal stop-initial verbs may be
debatable, though it certainly sometimes becomes real enough.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 11 08:24:30 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:24:30 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031210225853.97654.qmail@web40004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.012430.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> But we can take it even further. My speaker also gave
> me
>
> (2)	w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
>         'they ask around about him'
>
> and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that, after
> three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations, we'd
> get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude that
> rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-* functions
> to add slots, at least in some cases.

The comparable and cognate verb in OP is i'waNghe 'to ask someone (a
question)'.  The -waN- can be -maN-, too, though that was historically
reserved for the first person.  The personal inflection of this stem is
quite irregular, at least in part because the OP materials attest parts of
an old irregular paradigm intermingled with a newer, "regularized" one.

Older           Newer

*i'maNghe       idha'maNghe
*i'naNghe       i'dhamaNghe (sometimes erroniously idha'maNghe)
 i'waNghe       i'maNghe

The starred forms aren't attested as such, but occur in more complex forms
and/or elsewhere in Dhegiha.

I apologize for that digression, but anyone who referred to the Dorsey
texts would have encountered that horrible complexity immediately!

The thing about this verb that I wanted to bring up is this.  The wa-forms
[sic] for i'waNghe (i'maNghe) are:  we'maNghe and wawe'maNghe.  These are
both glossed something like 'to question', and are used when there is not
some specific object preceding (always eda'daN or iNda'daN 'what', I
think) and the context doesn't seem to suggest a particular question.  If
there is any difference between the two, it seems to be that the latter
form is often glossed 'to ask (different) questions', i.e., with more
than one question fairly explicitly indicated.  I don't think we'maNghe is
ever glossed with multiple questions, though wawe'maNghe is sometimes
glossed with a single question or general questioning.

That's pretty close to the 'variety object' that Regina was asking about,
and, as I hope will be obvious to everyone, it seems to involve a second
occurrence of wa-:  wawe'maNghe < wa-wa-i-(m)aNghe.

Note that the wa or wa's here refer to the question, not the person
questioned.

I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and turned up:

wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they scorn various things about
people?)
     < i'xa 'to laugh at'

wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide [various things?] for people)
     < i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'

wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats people [in various ways?])
     < i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'

It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
reduplication.  However, all of these examples involve at least an
implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.

The following are probably not examples:

wawe's^i 'pay' (means of hiring)
     < wa...s^i' 'to hire, to employ, to send on errand'
u'wawes^i 'pay' (in which there is a means of hiring)
     < wa-u'-wa-wa-i-s^i)

Here the wa- in was^i' seems to be a part of the stem.  The u'- is from
*wa-u'-, rendering the second form complex, but OP is apparently only
marginally aware of the *wa- in u'-, since it provides a pleonastic -wa-
after it in some paradigmatic contexts.

wawe'dhit[t]aN=i 'he works at various things *for us*'
     < dhit[t}aN 'to work at various things'

Here I think wawe' < wa-wa-gi- INDEF-P12-DAT, and 'variou things' is
implicit in the stem, e.g., wabdhit[t]aN 'I worked at various things'.

I'm not sure what to make of the next one; I never have been!

wawe'naNghidha 'to attack (him, them)'
     < ie'naNghidhe 'to attack'

It seems reasonable to ask if there are wawa'- forms parallel with the
wawe'- ones, but the answer seems to be "No."  All the examples of wawa-
seem to be from verbs in wa-, like wa...khega 'be sick', wa...xpaniN 'be
poor', wa...kha 'to mean', wa...s^i 'to hire'.  In this respect the
presence of i- seems to be crucial to 'variety objects'.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Dec 11 15:01:58 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:01:58 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.090158.0600.>

It looks as though maybe some experimenting would
be possible with Omaha and Ponca with the support
of the 1890 Dorsey text collection.  So, how many
different WA- morphemes would you posit?  And what
are their different meanings/functions?

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koontz John E" <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: "Siouan List" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> > But we can take it even further. My speaker
also gave
> > me
> >
> > (2) w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> > WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
> >         'they ask around about him'
> >
> > and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The
base
> > verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so
that, after
> > three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
we'd
> > get a valence of [-2] for PAT. So I conclude
that
> > rather than taking away valence slots, *wa-*
functions
> > to add slots, at least in some cases.
>
> The comparable and cognate verb in OP is
i'waNghe 'to ask someone (a
> question)'.  The -waN- can be -maN-, too, though
that was historically
> reserved for the first person.  The personal
inflection of this stem is
> quite irregular, at least in part because the OP
materials attest parts of
> an old irregular paradigm intermingled with a
newer, "regularized" one.
>
> Older           Newer
>
> *i'maNghe       idha'maNghe
> *i'naNghe       i'dhamaNghe (sometimes
erroniously idha'maNghe)
>  i'waNghe       i'maNghe
>
> The starred forms aren't attested as such, but
occur in more complex forms
> and/or elsewhere in Dhegiha.
>
> I apologize for that digression, but anyone who
referred to the Dorsey
> texts would have encountered that horrible
complexity immediately!
>
> The thing about this verb that I wanted to bring
up is this.  The wa-forms
> [sic] for i'waNghe (i'maNghe) are:  we'maNghe
and wawe'maNghe.  These are
> both glossed something like 'to question', and
are used when there is not
> some specific object preceding (always eda'daN
or iNda'daN 'what', I
> think) and the context doesn't seem to suggest a
particular question.  If
> there is any difference between the two, it
seems to be that the latter
> form is often glossed 'to ask (different)
questions', i.e., with more
> than one question fairly explicitly indicated.
I don't think we'maNghe is
> ever glossed with multiple questions, though
wawe'maNghe is sometimes
> glossed with a single question or general
questioning.
>
> That's pretty close to the 'variety object' that
Regina was asking about,
> and, as I hope will be obvious to everyone, it
seems to involve a second
> occurrence of wa-:  wawe'maNghe <
wa-wa-i-(m)aNghe.
>
> Note that the wa or wa's here refer to the
question, not the person
> questioned.
>
> I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and
turned up:
>
> wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they
scorn various things about
> people?)
>      < i'xa 'to laugh at'
>
> wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide
[various things?] for people)
>      < i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'
>
> wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats
people [in various ways?])
>      < i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'
>
> It seems particularly significant that two of
the three examples involve
> reduplication.  However, all of these examples
involve at least an
> implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in
Dhegiha.
>
> The following are probably not examples:
>
> wawe's^i 'pay' (means of hiring)
>      < wa...s^i' 'to hire, to employ, to send on
errand'
> u'wawes^i 'pay' (in which there is a means of
hiring)
>      < wa-u'-wa-wa-i-s^i)
>
> Here the wa- in was^i' seems to be a part of the
stem.  The u'- is from
> *wa-u'-, rendering the second form complex, but
OP is apparently only
> marginally aware of the *wa- in u'-, since it
provides a pleonastic -wa-
> after it in some paradigmatic contexts.
>
> wawe'dhit[t]aN=i 'he works at various things
*for us*'
>      < dhit[t}aN 'to work at various things'
>
> Here I think wawe' < wa-wa-gi- INDEF-P12-DAT,
and 'variou things' is
> implicit in the stem, e.g., wabdhit[t]aN 'I
worked at various things'.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of the next one; I
never have been!
>
> wawe'naNghidha 'to attack (him, them)'
>      < ie'naNghidhe 'to attack'
>
> It seems reasonable to ask if there are wawa'-
forms parallel with the
> wawe'- ones, but the answer seems to be "No."
All the examples of wawa-
> seem to be from verbs in wa-, like wa...khega
'be sick', wa...xpaniN 'be
> poor', wa...kha 'to mean', wa...s^i 'to hire'.
In this respect the
> presence of i- seems to be crucial to 'variety
objects'.
>
> JEK
>
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Thu Dec 11 17:33:11 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:33:11 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031211020834.73084.qmail@web40012.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.103311.0700.>

>
>
> > >
> > > (2)	w-?-wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
> > > 	WA-LOC-WA-WA-ask-PL
> > >         'they ask around about him'
> > >
> > > and this structure contains three *wa-*s. The base
> > > verb *iy?Ng^a* 'to ask' is transitive, so that,
> > after
> > > three detransitivizations or PAT-eliminations,
> > we'd
> > > get a valence of [-2] for PAT.

This one bothers me -- I'll have to think about it.

> > Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix
> > this time.  iyunga is
> > di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and
> > wawiunga.  I don't know a
> > verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for
> > wiwawiyungapi.  The thing
> > that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.
>
> I agree. So we're left with a [-1] valence for PAT in
> this case.



No, we're left with a zero valence.  The first wa deletes the 'my name'
slot from 'ask me my name'; the second wa deletes the 'me' slot from the
same verb; the third wa- deletes the 'about him' which is contributed by
the i- prefix.  As with Bob's theory, I think the result in Lakhota is
very hard to express in English, so the speaker has to add in objects that
are not actually referenced by the Lak. grammar.

But the 'paint the picture with many colors' example needs musing.

David


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 11 19:14:13 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:14:13 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <002f01c3bff7$cc1ebe20$02b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.121413.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:

> It looks as though maybe some experimenting would be possible with Omaha
> and Ponca with the support of the 1890 Dorsey text collection.  So, how
> many different WA- morphemes would you posit?  And what are their
> different meanings/functions?

Well, I still posit just two or three, depending on whether we distinguish
wa as an animate third person marker from wa as a "valence reduction
marker."  I definitely distinguish wa in wa ~ wa...a ~ awa P12, although I
concede that it might be historically connected, too.  And, of course, in
Dhegiha, the regular first person agent is a, not wa.

My logic in associating the first two wa's has been that, apart from an
occasional difference in accentuation, the two forms seem to be
morphosyntactically identical.  In other words, it's as if the plural
formation was a specialization of the detransitivized form, which is
certainly historically plausible.  Except maybe for these wawe- cases, and
maybe the wawa- cases I mentioned, too, the two wa's don't co-occur.
Naturally, since they're usually both object forms.  In the wawe- cases
I'm not positive that one of the wa's is a plural, because I think
wa-plural is generally animate.  In the wawa- cases the (first?) wa is
part of the stem, and is always present.  These are usually "experiencer"
subject verbs, though I don't think wa...s^i 'hire' is.  On the other
hand, given (1) the difference in accentuation, which might suggest that
there is sometimes a difference in length, and (2) the complex
interactions of wa with the locative u (which I've only hinted at), we
have at least some morphosyntactic differences.

So, let's say we have three wa's:  detransivizer, animate plural, and P12.
The one in which it is possible to do any subdivision is the
detransitivizer.  I think in a position-class approach you'd have to
distinguish the wa's in wawe and wawa, and you might want to distinguish
the the wa in deverbatives from statives, e.g., was^a(a)'be 'hunt chief's
standard' (dark thing).  These are all in some sense positionally or
functionally difference.

However, I think that instead of looking at Siouan morphology as a series
of ordered slots filled with slot-specific fillers, we have to look at it
as a series of ordered rules, with several paths through the rules, and
some multiple application of rules.  In that case these wa's all reduce to
"attach wa detransitivizer" even though the role that wa is filling
depends on the time at which the rule is applied.  For example, the
initial wa in wa...khega 'be sick', a non-dative experiencer verb (so it
looks stative in inflection) is a blocked reference to the body or the
part of it experiencing the sickness. (Though I am not positive you can't
include a noun referring to this body part in the sentence - will have to
check.)

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Dec 11 20:37:50 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:37:50 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.143750.0600.>

> But the 'paint the picture with many colors'
example needs musing.

My Dakotan muse has deserted me, but I'm reminded
of a sort of construction found in Slavic.
Russian doesn't have the same sorts of pronominal
arguments and/or valence markers, but it does have
special ways of distinguishing "I painted the
house" from "I painted here and there on the
house", and it does this with case selection.

"I painted the house" will have 'house' in the
accusative case.

"I painted about the house" or the like can have
'house' in the instrumental case if memory serves.

Or, "I threw the stone" -- 'stone' is accusative.

But "I tossed stones around" -- 'stones' is
instrumental.

Languages seem to have interesting special ways of
doing what we're calling "various ways" in
Dakotan.

Bob


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 20:48:06 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:48:06 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312111028180.25832@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.124806.0800.>


> > Yes, but one of these wa's goes with the i- prefix
> > this time. iyunga is
> > di-transitive, and you can get both wiunga and
> > wawiunga. I don't know a
> > verb i'iyunga, but that has to be the base for
> > wiwawiyungapi. The thing
> > that's adding the slot is the instrumental prefix.
>
> I agree. So we're left with a [-1] valence for PAT in
> this case.



No, we're left with a zero valence. The first wa deletes the 'my name'
slot from 'ask me my name'; the second wa deletes the 'me' slot from the
same verb; the third wa- deletes the 'about him' which is contributed by
the i- prefix. As with Bob's theory, I think the result in Lakhota is
very hard to express in English, so the speaker has to add in objects that
are not actually referenced by the Lak. grammar.


=====


This time I disagree. We forgot that one of the PAT slots in iyuNg^a is filled by a zero for ?(about) him?, rather than by one of the wa-s. So what we get is, roughly,



?-             w-                         i-       wa-  w-   iyuNg^a-pi

about him-in various places-LOC-WA-WA-ask-        PL

?they ask about him in various places?



I?m actually not sure what entity or entities the third w- refers to. At any rate, if the base verb is i?iyuNg^a ?to ask someone about something/someone in some place? (i.e. three PAT slots), then the ?about something/someone? slot is taken by ?- ?about him?. So we have two PAT slots left, ?someone? and ?in some place?. But we have three wa-s. So the end result indeed is a [-1] valence for PAT.



Regina



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/563039de/attachment.htm>

From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 21:22:13 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:13 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <002a01c3c027$507f3f80$26b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.132213.0800.>

Such case marking splits can be found in many languages, and one way of accounting for the particular type of split you quote from Russian is by means of the semantic parameter of affectedness of the object. More examples can be found in Hopper & Thompson's (1980) Language paper. But judging by the way affectedness of O is described in the literature, I'm not exactly sure if this characterizes the Lakota situation. So according to "affectedness theory", the standard transitive object case (mostly ACC) denotes action that has a quite thorough impact on the O, while the oblique (often INSTRumental) indicates a partial impact. My impression from working with Lakota, however, is that "variety wa-" actually emphasizes the notion of internal diversity in  the object, rather than less effective, less thorough, less completive action.

Regina

"R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:

> But the 'paint the picture with many colors'
example needs musing.

My Dakotan muse has deserted me, but I'm reminded
of a sort of construction found in Slavic.
Russian doesn't have the same sorts of pronominal
arguments and/or valence markers, but it does have
special ways of distinguishing "I painted the
house" from "I painted here and there on the
house", and it does this with case selection.

"I painted the house" will have 'house' in the
accusative case.

"I painted about the house" or the like can have
'house' in the instrumental case if memory serves.

Or, "I threw the stone" -- 'stone' is accusative.

But "I tossed stones around" -- 'stones' is
instrumental.

Languages seem to have interesting special ways of
doing what we're calling "various ways" in
Dakotan.

Bob



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/97fee812/attachment.htm>

From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Thu Dec 11 21:26:50 2003
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:26:50 -0700
Subject: Lakhota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.142650.0700.>

I you said thought the translation of wiwawiyungapi was 'they ask around
about him'. I think the "about him" is coming from the new i- prefix, and
the initial wa- detransitivies that.  I realize that the English
translation still has the "about him" in it, which is what prompted my
cryptic comment about English not having the options Lakhota has for
expressing participants that aren't arguments (Bob's point about 'house'
not being an argument in thi-wi'unpi.).  The doubly de-transitrivized
wawiyunge can be rendered by "they're asking around" -- no patients -- but
there's no way to express, in English, an additional argument that isn't
an argument.  So I don't think your example is right; I don't think there
is an X for 'about him' here; the first "wi" is 'about him', only the
"him" doesn't have argument status.  I don't think there is a zero in
addition to the three wa's. Instrumental i- often means 'because of' or
'about'.

David
X-             w-                         i-       wa-  w-   iyuNg^a-pi
  about him-in various places-LOC-WA-WA-ask-        PL

  they ask about him in various places



  Im actually not sure what entity or entities the third w- refers to. At
any rate, if the base verb is iiyuNg^a to ask someone about
something/someone in some place (i.e. three PAT slots), then the about
something/someone slot is taken by X- about him. So we have two PAT slots
left, someone and in some place. But we have three wa-s. So the end
result indeed is a [-1] valence for PAT.



  Regina



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C3BFF3.D7A181F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<DEFANGED_META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<DEFANGED_META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D061491221-11122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
thought the translation of wiwawiyungapi was 'they ask around about =
him'.&nbsp;=20
I think the "about him" is coming from the new i- prefix, and the =
initial wa-=20
detransitivies that.&nbsp; I realize that the English translation still =
has the=20
"about him" in it, which is what prompted my cryptic comment about =
English not=20
having the options Lakhota has for expressing participants that aren't =
arguments=20
(Bob's point about 'house' not being an argument in thi-wi'unpi.).&nbsp; =
The=20
doubly de-transitrivized wawiyunge can be rendered by "they're asking =
around" --=20
no patients -- but there's no way to express, in English, an additional =
argument=20
that isn't an argument.&nbsp; So I don't think your example is right; I =
don't=20
think there is an X for 'about him' here; the first "wi" is 'about him', =
only=20
the "him" doesn't have argument status.&nbsp; I don't think there is a =
zero in=20
addition to the three wa's. Instrumental i- often means 'because of' or=20
'about'.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D061491221-11122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D061491221-11122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>David</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>X-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;=20
</SPAN>w-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
</SPAN><SPAN DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN>i-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</SPAN>wa-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>w-<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>iyuNg^a-pi</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dreplbq=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid">
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>about him-in various places-LOC-WA-WA-ask-<SPAN=20
  style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =

  </SPAN>PL</FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>=11they ask about him in various places=12</FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
size=3D3><FONT=20
  face=3D"Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>I=12m actually not sure what entity or entities the third w- =
refers to.=20
  At any rate, if the base verb is i=12iyuNg^a =11to ask someone about=20
  something/someone in some place=12 (i.e. three PAT slots), then the =
=11about=20
  something/someone=12 slot is taken by X- =11about him=12. So we have =
two PAT slots=20
  left, =11someone=12 and =11in some place=12. But we have three wa-s. =
So the end result=20
  indeed is a [-1] valence for PAT.</FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
size=3D3><FONT=20
  face=3D"Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
  <P class=3DMsoNormal DEFANGED_STYLE=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
  size=3D3>Regina</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D21260/*http://p=
hotos.yahoo.com">New=20
Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing</A></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C3BFF3.D7A181F0--


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 22:16:14 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:14 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312102304050.1241@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.141614.0800.>




I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and turned up:

wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they scorn various things about
people?)
< i'xa 'to laugh at'

wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide [various things?] for people)
< i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'

wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats people [in various ways?])
< i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'

It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
reduplication. However, all of these examples involve at least an
implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.
======
That's interesting because in Lakota, wa- seems to have inanimate reference only. So OP wa- seems to have developed differently, semantically speaking, than Lakota wa-. (Which of course leaves the chicken-and-egg question open).

Regina



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/96c9f81d/attachment.htm>

From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net  Fri Dec 12 02:06:32 2003
From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:06:32 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031211221614.29855.qmail@web40008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.200632.0600.>

These would lend themselves to the following glosses:

they laugh at folks and laugh at folks
they decide-for-others things and decide-for-others things
he cheats folks and cheats folks

or the equivalent expressions in English with "around".  Neither type of
gloss is completely adequate.

where one wa is the "things" or "folks" valence reducer;
 and
the other wa multiplies the instances of the action

Carolyn



  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of REGINA PUSTET
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 4:16 PM
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
  Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'





    I looked for additional examples of wawe'- and turned up:

    wawe'xaxa=i 'they are laughers at them' (they scorn various things about
    people?)
    < i'xa 'to laugh at'

    wawe'dhigdhaN=i 'rulers' (those who decide [various things?] for people)
    < i'dhigdhaN 'to decide for someone'

    wawe'k[k]it[t]at[t]a 'a deceiver' (he cheats people [in various ways?])
    < i'k[k]it[t]e 'to cheat'

    It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
    reduplication. However, all of these examples involve at least an
    implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.
    ======

    That's interesting because in Lakota, wa- seems to have inanimate
reference only. So OP wa- seems to have developed differently, semantically
speaking, than Lakota wa-. (Which of course leaves the chicken-and-egg
question open).

    Regina


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Do you Yahoo!?
  New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/e3e8f810/attachment.htm>

From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net  Fri Dec 12 02:05:24 2003
From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:05:24 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031211212213.38356.qmail@web40016.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.200524.0600.>

I think the use of *extra* wa in Osage adds the sense of 'around' as in 'ask
around' and 'paint around on things'  or some such and alludes to repeating
the action.  So maybe 'asking and asking', or 'painting and painting'.  I
don't have the example at hand but seem to remember 'to see things' (over a
period of time on different occasions) being wawedhe, with two instances of
wa:
wa wa iidhe, with iidhe 'see'.  The gloss would be something like 'he's been
seeing things'.  One wa is the valence reducer "things" and one is a sort of
multiplier of instances of the verb, as I see it.

In the house-painting example and the picture-paining example with "extra"
wa, do the speakers conceive of the action happening in several instances?
Is the actor sort of painting around on the house or the picture at
different settings (though not necessarily with the informality implied in
English by "painting around") ?

Carolyn
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of REGINA PUSTET
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:22 PM
  To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
  Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


  Such case marking splits can be found in many languages, and one way of
accounting for the particular type of split you quote from Russian is by
means of the semantic parameter of affectedness of the object. More examples
can be found in Hopper & Thompson's (1980) Language paper. But judging by
the way affectedness of O is described in the literature, I'm not exactly
sure if this characterizes the Lakota situation. So according to
"affectedness theory", the standard transitive object case (mostly ACC)
denotes action that has a quite thorough impact on the O, while the oblique
(often INSTRumental) indicates a partial impact. My impression from working
with Lakota, however, is that "variety wa-" actually emphasizes the notion
of internal diversity in  the object, rather than less effective, less
thorough, less completive action.

  Regina

  "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:

    > But the 'paint the picture with many colors'
    example needs musing.

    My Dakotan muse has deserted me, but I'm reminded
    of a sort of construction found in Slavic.
    Russian doesn't have the same sorts of pronominal
    arguments and/or valence markers, but it does have
    special ways of distinguishing "I painted the
    house" from "I painted here and there on the
    house", and it does this with case selection.

    "I painted the house" will have 'house' in the
    accusative case.

    "I painted about the house" or the like can have
    'house' in the instrumental case if memory serves.

    Or, "I threw the stone" -- 'stone' is accusative.

    But "I tossed stones around" -- 'stones' is
    instrumental.

    Languages seem to have interesting special ways of
    doing what we're calling "various ways" in
    Dakotan.

    Bob




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
    New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031211/245865bb/attachment.htm>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 05:10:57 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:10:57 -0700
Subject: Obj.3p.an. and 'person' (Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object')
In-Reply-To: <20031211221614.29855.qmail@web40008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.221057.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> It seems particularly significant that two of the three examples involve
> reduplication. However, all of these examples involve at least an
> implicit 'them', also marked with wa- in Dhegiha.
> ======
> That's interesting because in Lakota, wa- seems to have inanimate
> reference only. So OP wa- seems to have developed differently,
> semantically speaking, than Lakota wa-. (Which of course leaves the
> chicken-and-egg question open).

Bob mentioned this in passing in an earlier part of this thread.
Mississippi Valley is the only branch of Siouan that has special third
person animate object markers.  Within this, Dakotan has wic^ha- in this
function, apparently a cut down variant of the noun that appears as
wic^ha's^a or wic^ha'sta in the various dialects of Dakotan.  But Dhegiha,
Ioway-Otoe, and Winnebago all have a prefix wa- in this capacity.  This is
usually assumed to be a specialization of the detransitivizer wa-, but it
might also be a cut down version of a some noun - considering the number
of nouns and nominalizations that start with wa-.

Your chicken or egg comment is quite apt here in several senses.  We might
wonder which use of wa- comes first, for example, which I assume is your
implication.  I tend to suspect the detransitivizer, because it is more
widespread in Siouan, but that kind of a distributional argument is not
especially strong.  I don't know what the crosslinguistic evidence is for
directionality in indefinite <=> third plural development.  We do have
third plural => indefinite in English constructions like indefinite they -
e.g., "they never learn."  But I seem to recall reverse developments in
Chukchi paradigms, with passives or antipassives serving as third person
forms.

On the other hand, we could also wonder whether wic^ha- and wa- are
independent developments in this capacity, and, if not, which came first.
One might hypothesize that PMV had *wa- in this capacity and that the
incorporated noun(s) wic^ha'S(ta) replaced this *wa- in Dakotan.  In any
terms, wic^ha- is a sort of vicar (in the ecological sense) of wa- in
Dakotan.

Here it may be useful to know that the 'person' nouns in MV are not
especially similar looking and are certainly not regularly correspondent.
In Dhegiha, 'person' is generally like OP nikka(s^iNga).  This would match
something like Dakotan (?) nic^ha(s^iNc^a) < PS (?) *riNhka(s^iNka) or
maybe (?) lic^ha(c^hiNc^a) < PS (?) *Rihka(yiNka), or you can mix and
match the two parts.  Now (?) nic^ha or (?) lic^ha are somewhat
reminiscent of wic^ha-, but they are nowhere near right on the mark, so
that my inclination is to see nikka and wic^ha- as unrelated.

The closest thing to wic^ha's^a in Dhegiha is actually waz^a'z^e 'Osage'
(a clan name found in most of the Dhegiha groups).  Dakotan wic^ha's^a
suggests PS *wihkas^- or *wiyas^-, while Dhegiha waz^a'z^e suggests PS
*was^as^- or *wayas^.  The second consonant in both cases is ambiguous as
to antecedant.  We're still uncertain about voicing of fricatives, and the
a:e final vowel alternation is standard for "consonant-final" stems in
Dakotan vs. Dhegiha (and Ioway-Otoe).  So it is really only the first
syllable vowel that's perhaps different, if we assume *wiyas^- and
*wayas^- as the hypthetical sources.  That's a much closer match than we
get with Dakotan wic^ha- and Dhegiha nikka.

I tend to think that Dhegiha waz^a'z^e 'Osage' is related to *(i)yas^-
'name', cf. Da c^haz^e' and OP iz^a'z^e.  So Dhegiha 'Osage' and perhaps
Dakotan 'person' might originally been a trope on the order of
'name-bearers'.

It's true that Dakotan has a band name waz^a'z^a which is an even better
match with Dhegiha waz^a'z^e, but this is rather too good a match.  I
suspect this is actually a loan from Dhegiha - perhaps the name came along
with some originally Dhegiha-speaking waz^a'z^e clansfolk.  If waz^a'z^a
were inherited, it would support the PS *was^as^- hypothesis.  But
pretonic z^ is unusual, except in Dhegiha as a reflex of *y, and the
Winnebago form of 'Osage' is waras^, which, if inherited, is from PS
*waras^- or *wayas^-, which (weakly) supports the PS *wayas^- hypothesis.
So the easiest way to get a nice non-canonical match for Dhegiha waz^a'z^e
like Dakotan waz^a'z^a is to borrow it.

I don't mean to suggest that the ethnoym 'Osage' is inherited, of course,
but only that the Winnebago form may be a valid calque, an etymologically
correct match, for waz^a'ze, while waz^a'z^a is a phonologically slightly
adapted (-e > -a) borrowing.  Of course, the Winnebago calque could be
based on a false folk etymology of what waz^a'z^e means (cf. Wi raa's^
'name'), and so irrelevant.  That's a decision folks will have to make for
themselves. (Now there's an indefinite from a plural.)

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 05:21:18 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:21:18 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOIEGDCHAA.cqcqcq1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.222118.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Carolyn Q. wrote:
> where one wa is the "things" or "folks" valence reducer;
>  and
> the other wa multiplies the instances of the action

I'd concede that the instance multiplier wa- - the variety object wa- in
Regina's terminology - would definitely be a fourth sort of wa- - even in
a non-position class approach to Siouan morphology.  I haven't quite given
up on the extra wa- plugging into some case role, though I admit I aven't
a clue what!


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 05:25:09 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:25:09 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOGEGDCHAA.cqcqcq1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.222509.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Carolyn Q. wrote:
> I think the use of *extra* wa in Osage adds the sense of 'around' as in
> 'ask around' and 'paint around on things' or some such and alludes to
> repeating the action.  So maybe 'asking and asking', or 'painting and
> painting'.  I don't have the example at hand but seem to remember 'to
> see things' (over a period of time on different occasions) being
> wawedhe, with two instances of wa: wa wa iidhe, with iidhe 'see'.  The
> gloss would be something like 'he's been seeing things'.  One wa is the
> valence reducer "things" and one is a sort of multiplier of instances of
> the verb, as I see it.

Interesting that again the verb (iidhe) is an i-locative.  And I assume
that 'ask around' would be a cognate of i-locative wawe'maNghe in OP.  I
take it that there's something special about the grammar of i- here, and
not merely its phonology.

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 12 06:57:25 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:57:25 -0700
Subject: wa- in Experienver Verns (Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object')
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312111116570.25335@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.DEC.2003.235725.0700.>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote:
> ...  For example, the initial wa in wa...khega 'be sick', a non-dative
> experiencer verb (so it looks stative in inflection) is a blocked
> reference to the body or the part of it experiencing the sickness.
> (Though I am not positive you can't include a noun referring to this
> body part in the sentence - will have to check.)

It does appear that wa...khega never takes an argument for the part of the
body that hurts or the manner of the sickness, at least not in the OP
texts.  I think this is the argument that wa- precludes.  The person
experiencing the sickness is expressed with patient markers in the verb.

OP:

P1 aNwakhega
P2 wadhikhega
P3 wakhega
P12 wawakhega

One reason I am fairly certain that wa- precludes the locus of the
sickness is that the Osage equivalent verb is in LaFlesche as ...hu'hega,
also using patient markers for the sick person.  At least in the first
person and inclusive.  The second person has agent form.  The verb is
reformulated as prefixing, and the root hega suggests that OP -khega is
dative (*k-hega), but hu, which replaces wa-, certainly looks like hu
'leg; stalk, stem' (OP has hi, mostly in the latter sense).

Osage:

P1 aNhuheka
P2 dhahuheka
P3 huheka
P12 wahuheka

One way to get around not having an argument slot is to add an additional
clause, loosely attached.

jod 1891:45.3/4

kki dhe'=dhiNkhe iga'xdhaN=dhiNkhe we'dadhe=           d=egaN wakhega:
and this the     his wife  the     she has given birth having she is sick

i'=the wami'    xtaN= naN=i
mouth the blood drops usually

And his wife, who has given birth, is sick:  she keeps spitting up blood.

You can add an inalienable possessor argument wrt the sick person by
making a dative verb:

jod 1891:100.8

s^iNgaz^iNga iN'wakhega  (instead of aNwakhega)
child        is sick to me

My child is sick.


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 13 16:33:23 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:33:23 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <AGEMKAHBJICALMADFKLOGEGDCHAA.cqcqcq1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.13.DEC.2003.083323.0800.>

> I think the use of *extra* wa in Osage adds the
> sense of 'around' as in 'ask
> around' and 'paint around on things'  or some such
> and alludes to repeating
> the action.

>
> In the house-painting example and the
> picture-paining example with "extra"
> wa, do the speakers conceive of the action happening
> in several instances?
> Is the actor sort of painting around on the house or
> the picture at
> different settings (though not necessarily with the
> informality implied in
> English by "painting around") ?
>
For now, I'd say that Lakota wa- doesn't normally have
this connotation, judging by the examples I have, but
I'll double-check on this with my speaker next week.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Sun Dec 14 02:42:15 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:42:15 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312101354270.21423@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.13.DEC.2003.194215.0700.>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote:

In thinking about the 'variety wa', I've come up with some questions.

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> > (1) thi-w-?-wa-'uN
> >     house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint the house in many places'
> >
> > (2) thi-'?-wa-'uN
> >     house-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint the house'

Can one add a color to either of these sentences?  If the w(a)- before i
does refer to the color painted with or the place painted, in short to the
paint application, then one would assume that only (2) can take a color
argument.

> > Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:
> >
> > (5) it?wapi ki   h?  wa-w-?-wa-'uN
> >     picture   the that  WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I am painting that picture with different colors'
> >
> > The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors'
> > here.

I'd still make this two extra wa's, albeit one of them is the 'variety
wa-' and so now accounted for.  But if 'color' is separate from the issue
of 'variety wa-' then perhaps the additiona wa- is the color argument or
the indication of the omission of it.

> > This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:
> >
> > (6) s?pa w-?-wa-'uN
> >     black  WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint it black'
> >
> > (7) *s?pa wa-w-?-wa-'uN
> >     black   WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> >     'I paint it black'
> >
> > The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-*
> > and the color term *s?pa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.

These last two examples show that it doesn't matter which wa- refers to
the color, i.e., in (1) it is the inner wa- that refers to multiple colors
and/or places, but in (6) that seems to refer to the thing painted on.

By contrast, in the Omaha-Ponca examples cited, the first or inner wa-
seems to refer to the indefinite object, e.g., an unspecified question in
we'maNghe' 'to ask an unspecified question; to questin', vs. i'maNghe
where the question is specific, while the second or outer wa- seems to
indicate multiplicity of the questions, e.g., in wawe'maNghe 'to ask
(different, several, various) questions' or, perhaps, 'to interrogate'.

Looking, Buechel lists forms like iyuN'gha 'to inquire of one, ask one a
question', wai'yuNgha 'to inquire', wi'yuNgha 'to ask questions or
inquire', wawi'yuNgha 'to inquire, ask questions', so I expect this
pattern can be investigated in Dakotan, too.

I can point to a possible additional 'variety (or multiplicity) wa-' in
Dakota.  Bruce Ingham's new Lakota grammar has a section on circumstantial
stems.  For example, for the circumstantial stem -khetu ~ -khel
'occurrence', he gives lists a non-specific verbal form tokhetu 'happen
somehow' (with a T-demonstrative), specific verbal form hec^hetu 'happen
thus' (with some other demonstrative), and a relational verb form
iyetc^hetu 'happen like ...' (with i + the e-demonstrative).  This
particular stem lacks adverbial or subordinate forms in khel, or perhaps
they are indistinguishable from those of the circumstantial stem -khec^a ~
-khel 'quality, occurrence of problem'.

There are a fairly large number of these circumstantial stems in Dakotan
(and other Siouan languages), and the prefixation of demonstratives and i
+ the e-demonstrative (relational circumstantial stem) does not exhaust
their morphology.  In particular, (p. 68) it is possible to prefix a wa-,
"an indefinite specific prefix which with verbs has the function of
increasing the valence [i.e, of recognizing it?  JEK] (see 4.5 above) and
with some circumstantial stems gives a more general or undefined meaning
as in wa-iyehaNl 'at about the time of' and wa-tohaNyaN 'for some time'."

===

I've just now also stumbled on this remark, p. 54, in Boas & Deloria:

"Transitive verbs may employ a double wa, one being direct, the other
indirect object:  waho'kuNk?iya 'he advises him', wawa'hokuNk?iya 'he
adsvises people about things', ignu' 'he mentions it to him', wi'gnu 'he
mentions (unkind) things to him', wawi'gnu 'he mentions (unkind) things to
people', ...

"It appears from these examples that the double wa ins the most
generalized term.  It is not always possible to trace the exact meaning of
the two objects. ..."

JEK


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 14 21:52:45 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:52:45 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312131753160.21760@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.DEC.2003.135245.0800.>

> > > (1) thi-w-?-wa-'uN
> > >     house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> > >     'I paint the house in many places'
> > >
> > > (2) thi-'?-wa-'uN
> > >     house-paint-1SG.AG-paint
> > >     'I paint the house'
>
> Can one add a color to either of these sentences?
> If the w(a)- before i
> does refer to the color painted with or the place
> painted, in short to the
> paint application, then one would assume that only
> (2) can take a color
> argument.

I'm still experimenting. A new hypothesis has just
formed in my mind regarding these troublesome multiple
wa-s, but I need more data to substantiate it. Plus,
I'll bring your question up in the next Lakota
session.

> By contrast, in the Omaha-Ponca examples cited, the
> first or inner wa-
> seems to refer to the indefinite object, e.g., an
> unspecified question in
> we'maNghe' 'to ask an unspecified question; to
> questin', vs. i'maNghe
> where the question is specific, while the second or
> outer wa- seems to
> indicate multiplicity of the questions, e.g., in
> wawe'maNghe 'to ask
> (different, several, various) questions' or,
> perhaps, 'to interrogate'.
>

This is a great example for a variety object reading.


> I've just now also stumbled on this remark, p. 54,
> in Boas & Deloria:
>
> "Transitive verbs may employ a double wa, one being
> direct, the other
> indirect object:  waho'kuNk?iya 'he advises him',
> wawa'hokuNk?iya 'he
> adsvises people about things', ignu' 'he mentions it
> to him', wi'gnu 'he
> mentions (unkind) things to him', wawi'gnu 'he
> mentions (unkind) things to
> people', ...
>
> "It appears from these examples that the double wa
> ins the most
> generalized term.  It is not always possible to
> trace the exact meaning of
> the two objects. ..."

This is exactly the impression that I get from working
on this. And it bothers me. I'm working on a cure ...
more on Tuesday, at the latest.

Regina



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From kdshea at ku.edu  Mon Dec 15 05:02:07 2003
From: kdshea at ku.edu (Kathleen Shea)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:02:07 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <SUN.14.DEC.2003.230207.0600.>

I hadn't checked my e-mail for a few days, and, when I did, I found about 40 messages on the Siouan list involving a very interesting discussion of wa-.  However, the original message on this topic, from Regina, came out unreadable on my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have this problem?  I would very much like to read her comments, which started off the whole discussion.  I haven't found her comments preserved in full in any of the subsequent messages, but I've only as yet skimmed through them.  Perhaps someone wouldn't mind forwarding them to me.  Thanks.

Kathy Shea
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: REGINA PUSTET 
  To: SIOUAN at lists.colorado.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:43 PM
  Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Dear Siouanists,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>It all started with some innocent work on noun incorporation in Lakota. In this context, my Lakota speaker came up with forms such as</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(1)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>thi-w-?-wa-'uN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>house-things.PAT-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(both components of the verb i'?N 'to paint' (also pronounced iy?N) are glossed by 'paint')</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>'I paint the house'</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>This example contrasts with</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(2)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>thi-'?-wa-'uN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>house-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>'I paint the house'</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The structural difference between (1) and (2) is that (1) contains the non-specific patient marker *w-*, whose full form is *wa-*. But there is also a subtle semantic difference between the two examples: according to my Lakota speaker, (1) actually means 'I paint the house in many areas', while (2) simply means 'I paint the house'. Syntactically, the remarkable thing about (1) is that this example admits two affixal objects: *thi-* 'house' and *w-* 'non-specific object'. But what puzzled me the most was the translation of *w-* by 'in many areas'. We get more of this in (3) and (4):</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">(3)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>waks^?-w-i'uN<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>plate-WA-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'to paint different kinds of plates'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(4)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>waks^?-'i'uN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>plate-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'to paint plates', *'to paint different kinds of plates'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Moreover, *wa-* can, obviously, appear more than once per finite verb:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(5)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>it?wapi ki<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>h?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>wa-w-?-wa-'uN</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>picture<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>the that<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I am painting that picture with different colors'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The extra *wa-*, according to my speaker, refers to 'different colors' here. This analysis is substantiated by the following examples:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(6)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>s?pa w-?-wa-'uN</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>black<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I paint it black'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>ungrammatical:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(7)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>s?pa wa-w-?-wa-'uN</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>black<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-WA-paint-1SG.AG-paint</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I paint it black'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The ungrammaticality of (7) can be blamed on the fact that in (7), *wa-* and the color term *s?pa* 'black' fill the same syntactic slot.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Unfortunately, so far, I was unable to identify the exact extra-linguistic referent of *w-* in (5) and (6).</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Still, all this seems to imply that in the case of examples (1), (3) and (5), *wa-* has a semantic connotation that could be rendered by the gloss 'variety object', rather than simply by 'things, stuff, etc.' as is usually done for *wa-* (which is of course appropriate in most other cases). The following examples should bring this out even more clearly:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(8)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>wa-y?ha</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-have</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'he has all kinds of things'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(9)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>w?-ha </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA+YU-have</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'he has things/everything (like a rich person)'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The form *w?-* in (6) results from contraction of *wa-* with the instrumental prefix *yu-*. *w?-* conveys the meaning of "regular" non-specific patient, while *way?-* seems to indicate a variety object. Not every verb that starts with *yu-*, however, admits the two contrasting expression formats for *wa-* that we see in (8) and (9): For *yu'?chetu* 'to make it right', there is only *way?'echetu*, but not *w?'echetu*. So far, all tested yu-verbs that do not have alternating *wa-*- forms have a *way?-*-form but not a *w?-*-form, with one exception: *y?ta* 'to eat'. *w?ta* is fine but *way?ta* is not grammatical. Plus, not in every case in which there are alternating *wa-*-forms, corresponding meaning distinctions could be elicited.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>A further argument for keeping *w?-* and *way?-* forms apart, not only semantically, can be derived from the fact that for 1<SUP>st</SUP> and 2<SUP>nd</SUP> person, *w?-* and *way?-* forms inflect differently:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(10)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>wa-bl?s^taN </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA-1SG.AG.finish</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I finish a lot of things'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">(11)<SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>w?-wa-s^taN<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>WA+YU-1SG.AG-finish</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN>'I am done'</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The two main questions which are implicit in these data are:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(a) Does a distinction between a marker for "plain" non-specific object vs. a similar or identical marker for variety object surface in other Siouan languages as well? What are the exact semantic functions of the equivalent of *wa-* in other Siouan languages? Are there Siouan languages in which the etymological equivalent of Lakota *wa-* functions to code the notion of variety object only?</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>(b) On the assumption that the two meanings of Lakota *wa-* ("plain" non-specific object vs. 'variety object') are historically connected, which meaning is older? Grammaticalization theory, via the concept of semantic bleaching, would predict that the meaning 'variety object' is older than the meaning 'non-specific object' since it can be argued that the former meaning is less abstract than the latter. But generally, I don't care much for deductive reasoning of this sort, I'd rather draw my conclusions on the basis of data from related languages. That's why I'd like to see some "cross-Siouan" data on this.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Best,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Regina</FONT></P></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21260/*http://photos.yahoo.com">New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031214/53f1d890/attachment.htm>

From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Dec 15 14:38:39 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:38:39 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.083839.0600.>

I had the same problem with Regina's original
message, but when I set about replying to it to
get a clear repeat, it was perfectly readable in
the "reply" window.  Go figure.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathleen Shea" <kdshea at KU.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


I hadn't checked my e-mail for a few days, and,
when I did, I found about 40 messages on the
Siouan list involving a very interesting
discussion of wa-.  However, the original message
on this topic, from Regina, came out unreadable on
my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have
this problem?  I would very much like to read her
comments, which started off the whole discussion.
I haven't found her comments preserved in full in
any of the subsequent messages, but I've only as
yet skimmed through them.  Perhaps someone
wouldn't mind forwarding them to me.  Thanks.

Kathy Shea


From kdshea at ku.edu  Mon Dec 15 17:26:47 2003
From: kdshea at ku.edu (Kathleen Shea)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:47 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.112647.0600.>

As you can see from my last posting on the list, my reply didn't produce a
clear copy of Regina's original message, but, since then, Rory Larson and
Justin McBride have both sent me clear copies.  Thanks!

Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at KU.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


> I had the same problem with Regina's original
> message, but when I set about replying to it to
> get a clear repeat, it was perfectly readable in
> the "reply" window.  Go figure.
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kathleen Shea" <kdshea at KU.EDU>
> To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
>
>
> I hadn't checked my e-mail for a few days, and,
> when I did, I found about 40 messages on the
> Siouan list involving a very interesting
> discussion of wa-.  However, the original message
> on this topic, from Regina, came out unreadable on
> my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have
> this problem?  I would very much like to read her
> comments, which started off the whole discussion.
> I haven't found her comments preserved in full in
> any of the subsequent messages, but I've only as
> yet skimmed through them.  Perhaps someone
> wouldn't mind forwarding them to me.  Thanks.
>
> Kathy Shea
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Dec 15 18:45:56 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:56 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <009301c3c2c8$97e634c0$4909ed81@9afl3>
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.114556.0700.>

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Kathleen Shea wrote:
> However, the original message on this topic, from Regina, came out
> unreadable on my computer, as seen below.  Did anyone else have this
> problem?

I believe the original letter used some HTML-based formatting.  This looks
nice if the receiving mailer is capable of handling it, and can look like
gibberish if not, so I still recommend against it for communications with
the list, even though more and more mailers support it.  I don't know any
way to prevent this, or keep people reminded of it.  Perhaps it can be
filtered out in the list mechanisms.  I'll look into it.

In fact, I use pine in a terminal window myself, which is pretty
old-fashioned, but newer versions of pine have gotten pretty good at
filtering out html, so I glazed past the "index of attachments" at the top
of Regina's letter without even noticing it, and the letter was readable
in pine.  Quotation marks in some of the subsequent communications came
out pretty wild at times, but I assumed this came from using a European
character set, presumably a necessity of life if you are German.  I
suspect I could fix this in pine, if I were smart enough ...

Sooner or later I will be forced to switch to the University's webmail, I
suspect, as the ancient Sun Unix terminal server I use is on its last
legs, and from time to time the University sends out ominous announcements
about the desirability of conversion.  I've been avoiding web mailers
since I was first forcibly converted to the Hotmail web mailer by MSN.
Under its fat-crayon graphics this is a feature-less piece of garbage
basically best suited to sending sequences of messages on the order of "Ya
me 2.  How R U. :-)."  You can even save several of them in the one saved
messages folder they allow you - I mean U.  You can't download the
messages to your own system.  No wonder the service is free.  It's
worthless.  The main purpose of Hotmail seems to be to keep you from using
Outlook Express and thereby falling afoul of its security holes.


From shanwest at uvic.ca  Mon Dec 15 22:06:53 2003
From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:06:53 -0800
Subject: Mailers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312151112210.15156@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.140653.0800.>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E
>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:46 AM
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
>
>Sooner or later I will be forced to switch to the University's webmail, I
>suspect, as the ancient Sun Unix terminal server I use is on its last
>legs, and from time to time the University sends out ominous announcements
>about the desirability of conversion.  I've been avoiding web mailers
>since I was first forcibly converted to the Hotmail web mailer by MSN.
>Under its fat-crayon graphics this is a feature-less piece of garbage
>basically best suited to sending sequences of messages on the order of "Ya
>me 2.  How R U. :-)."  You can even save several of them in the one saved
>messages folder they allow you - I mean U.  You can't download the
>messages to your own system.  No wonder the service is free.  It's
>worthless.  The main purpose of Hotmail seems to be to keep you from using
>Outlook Express and thereby falling afoul of its security holes.

Even if you give up Pine, you should be able to download your mail into
something useful like Eudora and avoid the pain of webmail. I use Outlook
(not Express) and haven't had any virus issues - though I'm smart about
attachments, even if there're from someone I know, I won't open them unless
I get a personal message too - and I quite like it.

Hotmail can actually be downloaded into Outlook Express thereby causing you
to have all the security issues and all the downloaded spam and viruses all
in one nice place. Again, if you're smart about it, OE for Hotmail is still
better than webmail.

I really really hate webmail. Can you tell? ;)

Shannon


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 16 19:17:40 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:17:40 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312151112210.15156@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.DEC.2003.111740.0800.>


(Regarding the difficulties with the format of some of my previous messages, I'm working with Yahoo, and I'm not sure if there is a way of getting around html format with Yahoo. I'm now trying to convert my message into txt format -- please let me know if this looks nicer.)



Here's some more data on Lakota wa-. This time, I'm mainly interested in constructions with multiple wa-, but I'm afraid that the following data complicate, rather than clarify, the situation. Using iyuNg^a 'to ask' for the purpose of demonstration, in Lakota, this verb may take three (seemingly direct) objects:



(1)        John itowapi ki taku ota iyuNg^a-pi

            John  picture the things many ask-PL

            'they ask John many things about the picture'



(2)        John iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask John'



(3)        taku ota iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask him many things'



(4)        itowapi ki iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask him about the picture'



although there is a tendency to mark the 'about' phrase explicitly by means of a postposition:



(5)        taku ota John itowapi ki el/etaN/uN/thaNtahaN iyuNg^a-pi

            'they ask John many things about the picture'



With w-iyuNg^a-pi (WA-ask-PL), the acceptability of objects seems to be more restricted. Putting all three objects is ungrammatical:



(6)        *John itowapi ki taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John  picture the things many WA-ask-PL

            'they ask John many things about the picture'



In all wiyuNg^api-examples elicited so far, the NP John may appear, which is not surprising since John, as an animate referent, can never be coreferential with wa-, which requires inanimate referents. The same is true for the wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi-examples (WA-WA-ask-PL). But only one of the other two object NPs is admissible. So a possible working hypothesis is that with wiyuNg^api, either the 'about'-phrase or the 'object of the question'-phrase (for lack of a better term) are eliminated by the presence of w-.



'object of question'-phrase present:



(7)        John taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John things many WA-ask-PL

            'they ask John many things'



However, if the 'about'-phrase is explicitly expressed, it must apparently be coded by means of a postposition:



(8)        John itowapi ki thaNtahaN w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John picture the about WA-ask-PL

            'they ask John about the picture'



(9)        *John itowapi ki wiyuNg^api

            'they ask John about the picture'



One more thing worth checking is if the presence of a postposition such as thaNtahaN in the 'about' phrase would make the triple-object example (6) acceptable. On the basis of the above working hypothesis, we might expect now that with double wa-, both inanimate object NPs, i.e. the 'about'-phrase and the 'object of question'-phrase, will be "banned" from the clause as independent constituents. However, very much to my surprise, the following example is grammatical on several trials:



(10)      John itowapi ki    taku    ota      wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi

            John picture  the  things  many  WA-WA-ask-PL

'they ask John many things about the picture'



At this point, the hypothesis about the object-eliminating function of wa- collapses since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take some mysterious additional types of semantic object whose exact nature could, so far, not be determined by my elicitation techniques, we have to interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential with the full NPs itowapi ki 'the picture' and taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize that these data do not really take us in the direction in which they hoped they would take us, since my initial idea was that by putting full object NPs and checking which wa-s would be eliminated by their presence, we'd get some more insight into the semantic reference of the wa-s. In this context, I also experimented with Rory's suggestions about wa-:



(11)      sapa i'uN  'to paint black'   is grammatical, and so is



(12)      itowapi ki he wi'uN 'to paint that picture'.



I also elicited



(13)      John itowapi ki he zi i'uN

      'John paints that picture yellow'



(14)      John itowapi ki he zi wi'uN

      'John paints that picture yellow'.



In other words, again, it does not seem to matter much if the wa-s are there or not, they do certainly not eliminate the full object NPs they should be coreferential with. So, structurally speaking, these wa-s do not really detransitivize verbs, although I agree with Bob saying that in other cases, via "piecemeal grammaticalization", wa- might actually function as a true detransitivizer.

As for Carolyn's Osage data, in with wa- is glossed by 'repetitive action', I think they are really good examples of something that is in the semantic range of "variety object". So if variety wa- in Lakota indicates diversification of the object in the material world, the Osage version expresses diversification of action in time. I tried to track down this usage in Lakota as well, but I always ended up with examples in which repetitive action is coded by the progressive/continuous/repetitive marker -hAN/-he, rather than by wa-:



(15)      thi-'i-wa-'uN-he

            house-paint-1SG.AG-paint-REP

            'I paint the house over and over, I paint and paint the house'



Regina




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031216/167bcf8c/attachment.htm>

From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Dec 16 19:45:52 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:52 -0600
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
Message-ID: <TUE.16.DEC.2003.134552.0600.>

Regina,

All your messages except that very first one have
been just fine.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "REGINA PUSTET" <pustetrm at yahoo.com>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'


>
> (Regarding the difficulties with the format of
some of my previous messages, I'm working with
Yahoo, and I'm not sure if there is a way of
getting around html format with Yahoo. I'm now
trying to convert my message into txt format --
please let me know if this looks nicer.)
>
>
>
> Here's some more data on Lakota wa-. This time,
I'm mainly interested in constructions with
multiple wa-, but I'm afraid that the following
data complicate, rather than clarify, the
situation. Using iyuNg^a 'to ask' for the purpose
of demonstration, in Lakota, this verb may take
three (seemingly direct) objects:
>
>
>
> (1)        John itowapi ki taku ota iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John  picture the things many ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> (2)        John iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask John'
>
>
>
> (3)        taku ota iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask him many things'
>
>
>
> (4)        itowapi ki iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask him about the picture'
>
>
>
> although there is a tendency to mark the 'about'
phrase explicitly by means of a postposition:
>
>
>
> (5)        taku ota John itowapi ki
el/etaN/uN/thaNtahaN iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> With w-iyuNg^a-pi (WA-ask-PL), the acceptability
of objects seems to be more restricted. Putting
all three objects is ungrammatical:
>
>
>
> (6)        *John itowapi ki taku ota
w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John  picture the things many
WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> In all wiyuNg^api-examples elicited so far, the
NP John may appear, which is not surprising since
John, as an animate referent, can never be
coreferential with wa-, which requires inanimate
referents. The same is true for the
wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi-examples (WA-WA-ask-PL). But only
one of the other two object NPs is admissible. So
a possible working hypothesis is that with
wiyuNg^api, either the 'about'-phrase or the
'object of the question'-phrase (for lack of a
better term) are eliminated by the presence of w-.
>
>
>
> 'object of question'-phrase present:
>
>
>
> (7)        John taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John things many WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things'
>
>
>
> However, if the 'about'-phrase is explicitly
expressed, it must apparently be coded by means of
a postposition:
>
>
>
> (8)        John itowapi ki thaNtahaN
w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John picture the about WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John about the picture'
>
>
>
> (9)        *John itowapi ki wiyuNg^api
>
>             'they ask John about the picture'
>
>
>
> One more thing worth checking is if the presence
of a postposition such as thaNtahaN in the 'about'
phrase would make the triple-object example (6)
acceptable. On the basis of the above working
hypothesis, we might expect now that with double
wa-, both inanimate object NPs, i.e. the
'about'-phrase and the 'object of
question'-phrase, will be "banned" from the clause
as independent constituents. However, very much to
my surprise, the following example is grammatical
on several trials:
>
>
>
> (10)      John itowapi ki    taku    ota
wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John picture  the  things  many
WA-WA-ask-PL
>
> 'they ask John many things about the picture'
>
>
>
> At this point, the hypothesis about the
object-eliminating function of wa- collapses
since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take
some mysterious additional types of semantic
object whose exact nature could, so far, not be
determined by my elicitation techniques, we have
to interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential
with the full NPs itowapi ki 'the picture' and
taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize
that these data do not really take us in the
direction in which they hoped they would take us,
since my initial idea was that by putting full
object NPs and checking which wa-s would be
eliminated by their presence, we'd get some more
insight into the semantic reference of the wa-s.
In this context, I also experimented with Rory's
suggestions about wa-:
>
>
>
> (11)      sapa i'uN  'to paint black'   is
grammatical, and so is
>
>
>
> (12)      itowapi ki he wi'uN 'to paint that
picture'.
>
>
>
> I also elicited
>
>
>
> (13)      John itowapi ki he zi i'uN
>
>       'John paints that picture yellow'
>
>
>
> (14)      John itowapi ki he zi wi'uN
>
>       'John paints that picture yellow'.
>
>
>
> In other words, again, it does not seem to
matter much if the wa-s are there or not, they do
certainly not eliminate the full object NPs they
should be coreferential with. So, structurally
speaking, these wa-s do not really detransitivize
verbs, although I agree with Bob saying that in
other cases, via "piecemeal grammaticalization",
wa- might actually function as a true
detransitivizer.
>
> As for Carolyn's Osage data, in with wa- is
glossed by 'repetitive action', I think they are
really good examples of something that is in the
semantic range of "variety object". So if variety
wa- in Lakota indicates diversification of the
object in the material world, the Osage version
expresses diversification of action in time. I
tried to track down this usage in Lakota as well,
but I always ended up with examples in which
repetitive action is coded by the
progressive/continuous/repetitive marker -hAN/-he,
rather than by wa-:
>
>
>
> (15)      thi-'i-wa-'uN-he
>
>             house-paint-1SG.AG-paint-REP
>
>             'I paint the house over and over, I
paint and paint the house'
>
>
>
> Regina
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 08:07:48 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:07:48 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031216191740.49765.qmail@web40017.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.010748.0700.>

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:> One more thing worth checking is if the presence of a postposition such
> At this point, the hypothesis about the object-eliminating function of
> wa- collapses since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take some
> mysterious additional types of semantic object whose exact nature could,
> so far, not be determined by my elicitation techniques, we have to
> interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential with the full NPs itowapi
> ki 'the picture' and taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize
> that these data do not really take us in the direction in which they
> hoped they would take us, since my initial idea was that by putting full
> object NPs and checking which wa-s would be eliminated by their
> presence, we'd get some more insight into the semantic reference of the
> wa-s.

The only thing that occurs to me is that perhaps wa does not so much act
to eliminate arguments as to background them.  In effect, it would be
something like an antipassive.  In simple object cases it might be
ungrammatical to include a backgrounded object, but in more complex cases
they might be permissible, or even necessary in some sort of functional
sense, to indicate the structure of the clause.  Foregrounding and
backgrounding are essentially the basis of the contrast between English
"spraypaint" examples, e.g., 'I painted the wall with yellow paint' vs. 'I
painted yellow paint on the wall'.  In a single object case like 'I shot
the deer' vs. 'I shot at the deer', the "antipassive" second alternative
indicates a lesser degree of affectedness or certainty of affectedness, or
perhaps only that the deer is of no further consequence, so that it
matters little whether it was hit or not.

However, for this to make sense with iyuNgha and i(y)uN we have to assume
that some cases of i introduce not one argument, but two - an instrument
or medium or similar sort of argument, and a thing more remotely involved.
I'm not sure I'm phrasing this well, but the two examples in question seem
to be 'with paint the thing painted' and 'some question about a subject'.
Given that the wawemaNghe examples in OP come from text with rather
approximate, one might suspect hurried, glosses, rather than from careful
examinations of the argumentation of the verb, it is possible that the OP
arguments of imaNghe are similar in nature to those of Teton iyuNgha, but
it's also possible that the second wa has come to indicate plurality in
some way, too.

Along these lines, in some cases plurality is a way of expressing a lack
of particularization, and would be a natural basis for translating some
kinds of wa-objects, or perhaps even a real part of the conception of
them.  But it might not work the same in all languages or even all verbs.
In OP wawemaNghe seems to imply multiplicity of questions (or perhaps
subjects of questions) relative to wemaNghe, while in Teton wi(y)uN seems
to imply multiplicity of paint applications (or perhaps places to which
paint is applied).

JEK


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 08:16:58 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:16:58 -0700
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <20031216191740.49765.qmail@web40017.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.011658.0700.>

I'd like to add that whatever the basis of the variety object wa and
various multiple wa constructions, this is all extremely interesting, and
I think we are heavily indebted to Dr. Pustet for sharing the data with
us!  It's definitely exciting to be included at the point where someone
first notices something new.

Thanks, Regina!


JEK


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Wed Dec 17 17:20:28 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:20:28 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.112028.0600.>

In light of the present conversations regarding "wa", I have a question regarding the use of "wa" in Omaha/Ponca. Please understand I have little formal linguistic training.

In Ponca we have "ni'the" -to heal. "Wani'the" translates as "THE healer" (Jesus). In this sense, it seems to me, "wa" acts like a "personifier" (correct term?).

We have "xu'be" -holy or mysterious. "Waxu'be" translates as "sacred thing", "sacred bundle", etc. We find "ni ni waxu'be" for "sacred pipe". 

Similarly, we find "wa sa'be" - "sa" or "sa'be" meaning "black" - for "black bear".

Then there's "washa'be" - "sha" often having a translation such as "grey", "in a mist", "in between black and white", "a dark object -like on the horizon". Joe HairyBack (Ponca) (have this on tape) said "washabe" clan is the "buffalo clan" but the word means "buffalo in a mist or a fog...you can't quite make it out".

La Flesche (1939) calls the War Ceremony "Washabe Athi^n". Jablow points out "the Washabe gens, one of the gens in charge of the tribal hunt, 'was the same as THE NAME OF THE CEREMONIAL STAFF used by the Omaha leader of the annual tribal buffalo hunt, and also of that subdivision of the Omaha Honga gens..."

To throw one more wrench in the engine -in light of the discussion regarding "wa wa" - La Flesche (1939) has  WaWa as "the Peace Ceremony" (although I think this comes from wa'o^n -to sing or song).

In light of the present conversations regarding "wa" and its uses, how do these examples fit in?

wi'btha hai ho!
TML


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031217/485e2cb3/attachment.htm>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 18:22:57 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:57 -0700
Subject: More regarding "wa"
In-Reply-To: <020701c3c4c2$17d461c0$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.112257.0700.>

These are excellent questions, actually, and issues like this have been
puzzling me for a long time, too.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> In Ponca we have "ni'the" -to heal. "Wani'the" translates as "THE
> healer" (Jesus).  In this sense, it seems to me, "wa" acts like a
> "personifier" (correct term?).

Personifier, in other words, a marker that means 'a person who ...'?  I
suppose maybe the traditional term might be something like "agentive."
In this particular case, I believe that the standard analysis would be
that wa refers to unspecified people who are healed or to the unspecified
existence of people or things healed.  So the form is in effect a sentence
'he heals people' being used as a noun.  Sentences being used as nouns is
sort of the core concept in Siouan derivational morphology.  I think that
the wa- is needed here because without it the form would be 'he heals him'
which would nominalize more or less as 'his healer'.

> We have "xu'be" -holy or mysterious. "Waxu'be" translates as "sacred
> thing", "sacred bundle", etc. We find "ni ni waxu'be" for "sacred pipe".
> ...

But with waxu'be, wasa'be, and was^a'be its a bit more difficult to see
what's happening - for me, anyway.  Presumably with these one-argument
verbs wa makes that one argument nonspecific, yielding an underlying or
literal meaning of 'something that's holy', 'something that's black',
'something that's dark', but it's less clear to me what the unmodified
stem is not adequate.  Clearly it isn't adequate, but I definitely feel
that I grasp the mechanism less certainly.  It appears that patient
arguments - things that would take aN, dhi, etc., as pronouns, rather than
a, dha, etc. - require filling with wa or an incorporated noun to make a
nominal, whereas agent aguments do not.  I still have an uncomfortable
feeling, however, that there are exceptions to this rule, though I'm not
remembering one at the moment.

Notice that Dhegiha does allow wa with animate reference.  I was
momentarily taken aback by Regina's comment yesterday that Dakotan wa was
necessarily inanimate, because of that.  Somehow I had always assumed that
wa could have a non-specific animate reference, too.  Would a Dakotan
nominalization require wic^ha- or something like that if the inspecified
argument was animate?


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 18:27:19 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:27:19 -0700
Subject: Washabe (Re: More regarding "wa")
In-Reply-To: <020701c3c4c2$17d461c0$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.112719.0700.>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> Then there's "washa'be" - "sha" often having a translation such as
> "grey", "in a mist", "in between black and white", "a dark object -like
> on the horizon". Joe HairyBack (Ponca) (have this on tape) said
> "washabe" clan is the "buffalo clan" but the word means "buffalo in a
> mist or a fog...you can't quite make it out".
>
> La Flesche (1939) calls the War Ceremony "Washabe Athi^n". Jablow points
> out "the Washabe gens, one of the gens in charge of the tribal hunt,
> 'was the same as THE NAME OF THE CEREMONIAL STAFF used by the Omaha
> leader of the annual tribal buffalo hunt, and also of that subdivision
> of the Omaha Honga gens..."

I've always associated the Ponca Was^abe clan with the Omaha Washabe
subclan, myself.  When you compare lists of clan names between the several
Dhegiha groups you find a number of instances like this in which what is a
subclan in one group is a clan in another.  Or sometimes a clan in one
simply seems to have several correspondences in another, or, of course,
none.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 17 18:36:53 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:36:53 -0700
Subject: wawaN (Re: More regarding "wa")
In-Reply-To: <020701c3c4c2$17d461c0$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.113653.0700.>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> To throw one more wrench in the engine -in light of the discussion
> regarding "wa wa" - La Flesche (1939) has WaWa as "the Peace Ceremony"
> (although I think this comes from wa'o^n -to sing or song).

I make this wa'waN (referring to the pipe dance adoption ceremony), with
wa wa and varients being less satisfactory transcriptions that neglect the
nasalization.  This also occurs in Dorsey in various places.  Stucturally
it is wa + a'waN 'to sing on (or over) people; to make an adoption in the
pipe dance' from a'waN 'to sing on (or over) someone; to adopt someone
with the pipe dance'.  The translations with "people" and "someone" are at
best awkward and conventional ways of expressing the transitivity of the
verbs in question.  The expression "pipe dance" itself is also a somewhat
awkward and conventional translation, though I believe it's standard.


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Wed Dec 17 19:49:14 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:49:14 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.134914.0600.>

The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John
are discussing has perplexed me too, particularly in
parsing names for tools and other technical terms.
In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might
refer to the subject as well as to objects.  What I
had in mind was this apparent use of wa- as a
nominalizer:

  wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
  wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
  wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
  wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
  wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'

These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
active verbs can be used in the same way:

  wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'

And then there is the whole suite of implement terms
that are built on the framework of

  [NOM]-i-VERB

where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that
VERB is enacted by means of something.  Usually,
if a noun sits in front:

  NOUN-i-VERB

then the noun is the object of the verb's action.
Rarely, however, it seems that the noun can be
the head of the derived noun phrase, and implies
that the noun is used to perform the verbal action,
rather than that it is the object of the verbal
action.  I only have one example at the moment,
and it's not as clear as I would like.

  moNzezi-i-gattushi
  brass  -i-  explode
  'the brass thing that is used to explode'
  = 'gun cap'

As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal
-i- exists; it might just be

  moNzezi-gattushi
  'exploding brass'

Assuming that such constructions do exist, however,
I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i-
nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and
means 'that which is used to enact VERB'.

In fact, we can find up to three variants of the
same i-VERB nominalization.

  NOUN-i-VERB
  moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube
  coffee     -i-   grind
  'coffee-grinder'

Here, 'coffee' is an object noun.

  i-VERB
  i-dhittube
  i-grind
  'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder'

Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-:

  wa-i-VERB
  wedhittube
  wa-i-grind
  'coffee-grinder'

But does this last construction mean

  'thing used to grind (things)'

or

  '(thing) used to grind things' ?

My gut feeling favors the first interpretation,
and I think our speakers have also favored that,
but it is really hard to find words that clearly
distinguish the matter.

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Dec 17 20:08:19 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:08:19 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.140819.0600.>

Is (wa-)nidhe a causative?  Looks like one.  I'm
assuming that the internal bracketting is [[wa]
[[ni] [dhe]]].  The semantics of the derivational
process here seem fairly consistent, although one
wouldn't expect the semantic outcome of derivation
necessarily to be predictable.  I can't decide
right off whether I consider this (apparently
nominalizing) WA- to be related to our other WA's
synchronically or not.  But "one morpheme or
two??" is an ancient and vexed question when one
tried to a strictly synchronic grammar.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
>   wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
>   wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
>   wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
>   wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
>   wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'
>
> These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
> active verbs can be used in the same way:
>
>   wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 17 20:57:24 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:57:24 -0800
Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object'
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312170109420.27870@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.125724.0800.>

Hi John

Thanks to you and thanks to the list! I really profited from all the comments I got. I think we better leave it at that for now -- the wa- issue drove my speaker to the edge of sanity (not to mention myself). And I'd like to point out that David was the first person I discussed this with, and that he suggested posting this to the list.

Regina (who really doesn't insist on the Dr.  :-) )

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
I'd like to add that whatever the basis of the variety object wa and
various multiple wa constructions, this is all extremely interesting, and
I think we are heavily indebted to Dr. Pustet for sharing the data with
us! It's definitely exciting to be included at the point where someone
first notices something new.

Thanks, Regina!


JEK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031217/e100d8e5/attachment.htm>

From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Wed Dec 17 22:10:08 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:10:08 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.161008.0600.>

I'm sure that nidhe is a causative.  I assume
that the ni(N)- part of that is the same root
as in nita, 'to live'.  I'd agree with Bob's
bracketting below.

As for interpretation, I was reflexing off what
Tom and John were using.  According to the
Stabler-Swetland dictionary of Omaha, nidhe
means 'to rescue', presumably 'cause to live'.
This version agrees with Dorsey's use of
Nia'wadhai' for 'Saviour' (He-saves-us, or
He-causes-us-to-live) in Omaha.  (The Ponka
version he gives is the same, with the first
syllable NiN- nasalized.)

So does nidhe mean 'to heal' in modern Ponka?
The Omaha word for 'healer' or 'doctor' seems
to be waze'dhe, also wa-CAUSATIVE.

Rory





                      "R. Rankin"
                      <rankin at ku.edu>             To:       <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      Sent by:                    cc:
                      owner-siouan at lists.c        Subject:  Re: More regarding "wa"
                      olorado.edu


                      12/17/2003 02:08 PM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan






Is (wa-)nidhe a causative?  Looks like one.  I'm
assuming that the internal bracketting is [[wa]
[[ni] [dhe]]].  The semantics of the derivational
process here seem fairly consistent, although one
wouldn't expect the semantic outcome of derivation
necessarily to be predictable.  I can't decide
right off whether I consider this (apparently
nominalizing) WA- to be related to our other WA's
synchronically or not.  But "one morpheme or
two??" is an ancient and vexed question when one
tried to a strictly synchronic grammar.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
>   wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
>   wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
>   wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
>   wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
>   wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'
>
> These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
> active verbs can be used in the same way:
>
>   wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Wed Dec 17 23:44:24 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:44:24 -0600
Subject: wawaN (Re: More regarding "wa")
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.174424.0600.>

> I make this wa'waN (referring to the pipe dance adoption ceremony), with
> wa wa and varients being less satisfactory transcriptions that neglect the
> nasalization.  This also occurs in Dorsey in various places.  Stucturally
> it is wa + a'waN 'to sing on (or over) people; to make an adoption in the
> pipe dance' from a'waN 'to sing on (or over) someone; to adopt someone
> with the pipe dance'.  The translations with "people" and "someone" are at
> best awkward and conventional ways of expressing the transitivity of the
> verbs in question.  The expression "pipe dance" itself is also a somewhat
> awkward and conventional translation, though I believe it's standard.

I think you are correct in stating wa'waN has a conventional translation as
"pipe dance". My dad Joe Rush (Ponca) always said "wa'waN" meant "to sing
over (a person or group)" (Right again, John!). He also said the WaWaN never
used a pipe at all. From a tape I made with him in 1977:

".....they used that calumet wand. That wasn't a pipe. It doesn't have a
pipe bowl on it at all. That wand was used sort of like a pass to travel
among different tribes.  Way back there....pahunga'
the.....ukhi'te.....other tribes ....when they saw that wand....why, they'd
leave you alone. It's a holy thing. People started calling that wand a pipe
in English and I guess the name just stuck. But if you understand Ponca you
know that's not what they're saying.


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Thu Dec 18 00:11:23 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:11:23 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.181123.0600.>

The use of "wa- as a nominalizer", as Rory pointed out, makes some sense in
certain aspects. For instance, Rory pointed out 'wa-z^ide = 'the one that is
red'. Wa-z^ide is Ponca for "tomato".

But 'wa-nidhe' ('the one that heals') while making some sense in this
regard, is also used almost as a proper name. In prayer, people address
Jesus as "Wa-nidhe".


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rory M Larson" <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: More regarding "wa"


>
> The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John
> are discussing has perplexed me too, particularly in
> parsing names for tools and other technical terms.
> In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might
> refer to the subject as well as to objects.  What I
> had in mind was this apparent use of wa- as a
> nominalizer:
>
>   wa-sabe = 'the one that is black'
>   wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark'
>   wa-xube = 'the one that is holy'
>   wa-z^iNga = 'the one that is small'
>   wa-z^ide = 'the one that is red'
>
> These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if
> active verbs can be used in the same way:
>
>   wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals'
>
> And then there is the whole suite of implement terms
> that are built on the framework of
>
>   [NOM]-i-VERB
>
> where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that
> VERB is enacted by means of something.  Usually,
> if a noun sits in front:
>
>   NOUN-i-VERB
>
> then the noun is the object of the verb's action.
> Rarely, however, it seems that the noun can be
> the head of the derived noun phrase, and implies
> that the noun is used to perform the verbal action,
> rather than that it is the object of the verbal
> action.  I only have one example at the moment,
> and it's not as clear as I would like.
>
>   moNzezi-i-gattushi
>   brass  -i-  explode
>   'the brass thing that is used to explode'
>   = 'gun cap'
>
> As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal
> -i- exists; it might just be
>
>   moNzezi-gattushi
>   'exploding brass'
>
> Assuming that such constructions do exist, however,
> I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i-
> nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and
> means 'that which is used to enact VERB'.
>
> In fact, we can find up to three variants of the
> same i-VERB nominalization.
>
>   NOUN-i-VERB
>   moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube
>   coffee     -i-   grind
>   'coffee-grinder'
>
> Here, 'coffee' is an object noun.
>
>   i-VERB
>   i-dhittube
>   i-grind
>   'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder'
>
> Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-:
>
>   wa-i-VERB
>   wedhittube
>   wa-i-grind
>   'coffee-grinder'
>
> But does this last construction mean
>
>   'thing used to grind (things)'
>
> or
>
>   '(thing) used to grind things' ?
>
> My gut feeling favors the first interpretation,
> and I think our speakers have also favored that,
> but it is really hard to find words that clearly
> distinguish the matter.
>
> Rory
>
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Thu Dec 18 00:49:33 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:49:33 -0700
Subject: wawaN (Re: More regarding "wa")
In-Reply-To: <033401c3c4f7$b5e29f00$37dd4bab@tleonard>
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.174933.0700.>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Leonard wrote:
> I think you are correct in stating wa'waN has a conventional translation as
> "pipe dance". My dad Joe Rush (Ponca) always said "wa'waN" meant "to sing
> over (a person or group)" (Right again, John!). He also said the WaWaN never
> used a pipe at all. ...

It's nice to have my guess at "over" concide with your dad's translation.
I think that the expression "pipe (dance)" arises because in some groups a
pipe was actually used in lieu of the pipe-like wand used among the Omaha
and Ponca.  The pipe-dance adoption existed in variants among many
different groups in the Eastern part of North America.  As I understand it
it is a sort of alliance or pledge of good relations between the adopter's
clan and the adoptee's clan.  I believe that the Dorsey texts suggest
indirectly that the use of the causative in kinship terms indicates this
sort of adoption between ego and members of a clan or group in which ego's
clan has adopted someone.  The adoptee is the child of the adopter and
relationships between the two clans or lineages proceed on that basis.

JEK


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Dec 18 14:48:54 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:48:54 -0600
Subject: More regarding "wa"
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.084854.0600.>

These are both very nice examples of the fact that
the outcome of derivational morphological process
is not semantically predictable.  New words are
created by nominalizing verbs in just the way Rory
states.  Then those words take on a life of their
own and, in these cases, have specialized to very
particular meanings in just the way Tom Leonard
states.  Inflection, of course, is different and
should always have semantically predicatble
results.

Bob

> The use of "wa- as a nominalizer", as Rory
pointed out, makes some sense in
> certain aspects. For instance, Rory pointed out
'wa-z^ide = 'the one that is
> red'. Wa-z^ide is Ponca for "tomato".

> But 'wa-nidhe' ('the one that heals') while
making some sense in this
> regard, is also used almost as a proper name. In
prayer, people address
> Jesus as "Wa-nidhe".


From tleonard at prodigy.net  Fri Dec 19 00:56:41 2003
From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:56:41 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.185641.0600.>

Thought I'd share parts of a conversation I've been having with John Koontz.
I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.

I've been studying the "war dance complex" amongst the Dhegiha tribes.

In Ponca, the word for this is "hethu's^ka". I also have the word being
pronounced "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) , hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) and
hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka).

Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost but
add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'". However, my dad Joe Rush in
1977 said the word came from "xthe-xthe" (tattoo or
tattooed people) and "s^ka'de" (play or to enjoy). From a tape of him in
1977: "it meant for the enjoyment of those old folks...those old
folks...they had tattoos on them.....they kind of showed their rank".

Does this make linguistic sense?

Let's look at "s^ka" in the word first.

John suggested "It is interesting to see another connection to s^kade, but I
think that it's not likely that a final s^ka in OP would derived from
s^kade.  I suspect that the Osage revised form with this association in it
has maybe influenced your father, though, of course, I don't know if that's
really a plausible assumption." Joe Rush was the head singer for all three
Osage Districts for many years and he certainly had plenty of contact over
there. So, that might have been the case (although he would have never
admitted it). So, I'll give that a "maybe".

The question regarding s^ka from s^kade (to play) came from a discussion of
the widely held translation of ilon's^ka (the Osage word for the 'war
dance'), that is "playground of the eldest son". LaFlesche (1939) translated
ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder" ("iloN" or igthoN - thunder). It
is my contention the "playground of the eldest son" translation is a folk
etymology that has become quite engrained. In the 1970's I had several
elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing to
do with "playing" or "playgrounds" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).

Oddly enough, the "old religion" had lots to do with bundle rites that
featured "xthe-xthe" - tattooing. The old priests were given tattooes when
they acheived a certain status (see LaFlesche). I think the last Osage who
had these died in the mid 1970's, but I remember seeing him.

I've also wondered if "s^ka came from "s^ka'xe" (you make). I have heard
"s^ka'xe" abbreviated to "s^ka". For instance, you often hear "u' doN s^ka"
(you did good). John mentioned: "In OP gaghe can be used as a sort of
causative, but it means something like "act like, perform as."  There's not
much tendency to lose final syllables in compounding except in initial
elements, e.g., s^aNttaNga, iNkhesabe, waz^iNttu and so on." Culturally,
s^ka from s^kaxe makes some sense. It also makes some sense in the context
of the anthro. literature in this regard.

Now here's the rough part.

Is it conceivable the word ( "hethu's^ka" or "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) or
hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) or  hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka)) could have
changed from "xthe-xthe-s^ka" [s^kaxe or s^kade] to "xe-xthe-s^ka" to
"xe-tho-s^ka" to "he-tho-s^ka"...... (I do have some elders saying
"he-tho-s^ka")......or perhaps.......

"xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
"he-thu-s^ka"........

Are any of these a plausible morph or liguistic change pattern?

One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
"idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Wi'btha hai ho!


From hhgarvin at hotmail.com  Fri Dec 19 04:46:36 2003
From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:46:36 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.224636.0600.>

Thought I'd chime in here.  In Hocank, the word "herus^ka" nowadays refers
to people who go through the pow-wow circuit.  Some say it refers to living
a humble, giving way of life, but as far as I know, it is not related to any
"war dances" and is often associated mainly with pow-wow.  At least at this
point and time. Many of the songs we sing at pow-wow have this word, and are
actually called "herus^ka songs"

I've been told that the word itself means "untying of the horn" and refers
to the headgear worn by dancers (roaches, turbans, etc.).

don't know if this helps.

Henning Garvin
Linguistic research
Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division






>From: "Tom Leonard" <tleonard at prodigy.net>
>Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
>Subject: Hethuska
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:56:41 -0600
>
>Thought I'd share parts of a conversation I've been having with John
>Koontz.
>I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.
>
>I've been studying the "war dance complex" amongst the Dhegiha tribes.
>
>In Ponca, the word for this is "hethu's^ka". I also have the word being
>pronounced "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) , hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) and
>hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka).
>
>Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost but
>add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'". However, my dad Joe Rush in
>1977 said the word came from "xthe-xthe" (tattoo or
>tattooed people) and "s^ka'de" (play or to enjoy). From a tape of him in
>1977: "it meant for the enjoyment of those old folks...those old
>folks...they had tattoos on them.....they kind of showed their rank".
>
>Does this make linguistic sense?
>
>Let's look at "s^ka" in the word first.
>
>John suggested "It is interesting to see another connection to s^kade, but
>I
>think that it's not likely that a final s^ka in OP would derived from
>s^kade.  I suspect that the Osage revised form with this association in it
>has maybe influenced your father, though, of course, I don't know if that's
>really a plausible assumption." Joe Rush was the head singer for all three
>Osage Districts for many years and he certainly had plenty of contact over
>there. So, that might have been the case (although he would have never
>admitted it). So, I'll give that a "maybe".
>
>The question regarding s^ka from s^kade (to play) came from a discussion of
>the widely held translation of ilon's^ka (the Osage word for the 'war
>dance'), that is "playground of the eldest son". LaFlesche (1939)
>translated
>ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder" ("iloN" or igthoN - thunder).
>It
>is my contention the "playground of the eldest son" translation is a folk
>etymology that has become quite engrained. In the 1970's I had several
>elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing
>to
>do with "playing" or "playgrounds" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
>to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
>subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).
>
>Oddly enough, the "old religion" had lots to do with bundle rites that
>featured "xthe-xthe" - tattooing. The old priests were given tattooes when
>they acheived a certain status (see LaFlesche). I think the last Osage who
>had these died in the mid 1970's, but I remember seeing him.
>
>I've also wondered if "s^ka came from "s^ka'xe" (you make). I have heard
>"s^ka'xe" abbreviated to "s^ka". For instance, you often hear "u' doN s^ka"
>(you did good). John mentioned: "In OP gaghe can be used as a sort of
>causative, but it means something like "act like, perform as."  There's not
>much tendency to lose final syllables in compounding except in initial
>elements, e.g., s^aNttaNga, iNkhesabe, waz^iNttu and so on." Culturally,
>s^ka from s^kaxe makes some sense. It also makes some sense in the context
>of the anthro. literature in this regard.
>
>Now here's the rough part.
>
>Is it conceivable the word ( "hethu's^ka" or "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) or
>hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) or  hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka)) could have
>changed from "xthe-xthe-s^ka" [s^kaxe or s^kade] to "xe-xthe-s^ka" to
>"xe-tho-s^ka" to "he-tho-s^ka"...... (I do have some elders saying
>"he-tho-s^ka")......or perhaps.......
>
>"xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
>"he-thu-s^ka"........
>
>Are any of these a plausible morph or liguistic change pattern?
>
>One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
>"idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
>shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?
>
>Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Wi'btha hai ho!
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ?  and
yourself.   http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx


From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc  Fri Dec 19 14:54:21 2003
From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:54:21 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.085421.0600.>

Tom:
The Dakota here at Spirit Lake Rez used the term. Heyoska as meaning a
member of the Grass Dance Society.
They used to sing many songs with Heyoska in the words.
The Arikara and Hidatsa at Ft. Berthold Rez still use some of these songs
that were taught by the tribal members from here in the last century.
The use of this term here has died out.
Some of the singers still remember my favorite song:
Heyoska wotape - the Feast Song.

I have spent years writing up a job description for each one of the officers
of the old Grass Dance Society.
I see a book was published last year "Dance Lodges of the Omaha People:
Building from memory" by mark Awakiuni-Swetland. New York: Routledge 2001.
$75.
Have you seen it? Is it any good?
Later,
Louie


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Fri Dec 19 16:07:36 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:07:36 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.100736.0600.>

An idea that occurs to me is that the final part of /hedhu's^ka/,
instead of being a truncated /s^ka'de/, 'play', might be
/us^koN'/, meaning 'deed', 'behavior' or 'activity'.  A lot of
nasal vowels get denasalized, at least in modern OP, and I can
easily imagine a compounded X-u's^koN becoming X-u's^ka.  We'd
have to shift the accent back a syllable, but I think this does
happen in some nominalizations of u- verbs (John?).

Under that hypothesis, we could probably translate /hedhu's^ka/
transparently as "horn-activity", with epenthetic 'y', 'r' or
'dh' in between.  But Tom's idea that the /he(dh)-/ part of
that is from 'tattoo', /xdhe'xdhe/ (or perhaps just plain *xdhe
without reduplication?) should work as well with this as with
/s^ka'de/.  It would also have the advantage of accounting for
that accented 'u'/'o' in the middle, which is otherwise missing
from the etymology:

> "xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
> "he-thu-s^ka"........

So how about:

"xthe-xthe-u's^koN" to "xthe-xthu'-s^ka" to "xe-thu'-s^ka" to
"he-thu'-s^ka"........

Rory





                      "Tom Leonard"
                      <tleonard at prodigy.ne        To:       <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
                      t>                          cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  Hethuska
                      owner-siouan at lists.c
                      olorado.edu


                      12/18/2003 06:56 PM
                      Please respond to
                      siouan






Thought I'd share parts of a conversation I've been having with John
Koontz.
I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.

I've been studying the "war dance complex" amongst the Dhegiha tribes.

In Ponca, the word for this is "hethu's^ka". I also have the word being
pronounced "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) , hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) and
hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka).

Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost but
add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'". However, my dad Joe Rush in
1977 said the word came from "xthe-xthe" (tattoo or
tattooed people) and "s^ka'de" (play or to enjoy). From a tape of him in
1977: "it meant for the enjoyment of those old folks...those old
folks...they had tattoos on them.....they kind of showed their rank".

Does this make linguistic sense?

Let's look at "s^ka" in the word first.

John suggested "It is interesting to see another connection to s^kade, but
I
think that it's not likely that a final s^ka in OP would derived from
s^kade.  I suspect that the Osage revised form with this association in it
has maybe influenced your father, though, of course, I don't know if that's
really a plausible assumption." Joe Rush was the head singer for all three
Osage Districts for many years and he certainly had plenty of contact over
there. So, that might have been the case (although he would have never
admitted it). So, I'll give that a "maybe".

The question regarding s^ka from s^kade (to play) came from a discussion of
the widely held translation of ilon's^ka (the Osage word for the 'war
dance'), that is "playground of the eldest son". LaFlesche (1939)
translated
ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder" ("iloN" or igthoN - thunder).
It
is my contention the "playground of the eldest son" translation is a folk
etymology that has become quite engrained. In the 1970's I had several
elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing
to
do with "playing" or "playgrounds" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).

Oddly enough, the "old religion" had lots to do with bundle rites that
featured "xthe-xthe" - tattooing. The old priests were given tattooes when
they acheived a certain status (see LaFlesche). I think the last Osage who
had these died in the mid 1970's, but I remember seeing him.

I've also wondered if "s^ka came from "s^ka'xe" (you make). I have heard
"s^ka'xe" abbreviated to "s^ka". For instance, you often hear "u' doN s^ka"
(you did good). John mentioned: "In OP gaghe can be used as a sort of
causative, but it means something like "act like, perform as."  There's not
much tendency to lose final syllables in compounding except in initial
elements, e.g., s^aNttaNga, iNkhesabe, waz^iNttu and so on." Culturally,
s^ka from s^kaxe makes some sense. It also makes some sense in the context
of the anthro. literature in this regard.

Now here's the rough part.

Is it conceivable the word ( "hethu's^ka" or "heo's^ka" (hey-o-shka) or
hetho's^ka (hey-low-shka) or  hethoo's^ka (hey-thoo-shka)) could have
changed from "xthe-xthe-s^ka" [s^kaxe or s^kade] to "xe-xthe-s^ka" to
"xe-tho-s^ka" to "he-tho-s^ka"...... (I do have some elders saying
"he-tho-s^ka")......or perhaps.......

"xthe-xthe-s^ka" to "xthe-xthu-s^ka" to "xe-thu-s^ka" to
"he-thu-s^ka"........

Are any of these a plausible morph or liguistic change pattern?

One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
"idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Wi'btha hai ho!


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Dec 19 16:22:26 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:22:26 -0600
Subject: Hethushka -- the curmudgeonly explanation.
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.102226.0600.>

The linguist in me tells me that ALL of the
proposed etymologies/sources for this term thus
far are probably "folk etymologies".  There is no
guarantee that the term is even Siouan in origin.
This is especially the case since it is attested
in Pawnee and possibly other languages.  Where
else is it represented and where/when did it
begin?

There is strong evidence that the term has been
borrowed/loaned around quite apart from its
appearance in Pawnee.  The sound correspondences
simply don't match among the languages -- even
closely related ones -- where the term is found.
The Omaha and Ponca [dh] doesn't match the Osage
and Kaw [l], which, then, has to represent either
a borrowed [dh] sound or the remains of an earlier
[gl] cluster.  Neither works, and I see no point
in stretching credibility to make the Osage/Kaw
forms into datives, reflexives, reciprocals or
whatever other Kontortions one would have to go to
to make the phonemes match.  The oral/nasal vowels
don't match either.  And accent seems to be on
different syllables in different languages.
Everything points to diffusion.

We do know several things, but they remain pretty
non-specific.  (1) it definitely has to do with
dancing everywhere it occurs, (2) in several
groups, this is strictly a men's society/dance.
(3) the Grass Dance wouldn't necessarily fit with
2 "down South" however.  The pow-wow circuit is
within the general dance category.

About all I can add in the way of semantic rumors
is that I've heard that it is somehow derived from
a term for dance CIRCLE.  But those are just
rumors.

I wish I could be more positive.  I think the only
way to pursue this is to try to track down
specific semantic references in as many languages
as possible and see how or if they fit together.
That's what I've tried to do here, but I haven't
gotten very far!

Bob


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 19 18:06:44 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:06:44 -0700
Subject: Hethushka -- the curmudgeonly explanation.
In-Reply-To: <002101c3c64c$5d8c0f20$2eb5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.110644.0700.>

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, R. Rankin wrote:
> The linguist in me tells me that ALL of the proposed etymologies/sources
> for this term thus far are probably "folk etymologies".  There is no
> guarantee that the term is even Siouan in origin. This is especially the
> case since it is attested in Pawnee and possibly other languages.
> Where else is it represented and where/when did it begin?

The short of it is that I agree with Bob.

> There is strong evidence that the term has been borrowed/loaned around
> quite apart from its appearance in Pawnee.  The sound correspondences
> simply don't match among the languages -- even closely related ones --
> where the term is found. The Omaha and Ponca [dh] doesn't match the
> Osage and Kaw [l], which, then, has to represent either a borrowed [dh]
> sound or the remains of an earlier [gl] cluster.  Neither works, and I
> see no point in stretching credibility to make the Osage/Kaw forms into
> datives, reflexives, reciprocals or whatever other Kontortions one would
> have to go to to make the phonemes match.  The oral/nasal vowels don't
> match either.  And accent seems to be on different syllables in
> different languages. Everything points to diffusion.

I do suspect that the original form here is something like the OP form
hedhus^ka and that versions that substitute i for he (or s for s^) are
minimally divergent from this, perhaps in the interest of producing a more
canonical seeming form for a fundamentally uninterpretable word.  The
Osage (and maybe Kaw) forms with iloN substituted for hedhu are probably
cases where iloN 'eldest son' or possibly 'thunder' (really loN, isn't
it?) has been specifically substituted for the meaningless hedhu syllables
within those languages, again trying to form a more plausible sounding
word - a strong suggestion of a borrowing.

I don't know of any interpretation for the word that doesn't strike me as
a more or less strained folk etymology, and I can't make anything of the
pieces, though, if I had to guess, it would be hedhus^ (meaningless to me,
and not a very canonical morpheme either) + ka, the latter acting as a
nominalizer:  "those who hedhus^."  Ignoring more divergent forms like
those in Osage, you could come up with a pseudo-reconstruction as
*heros^ka, and this or *iros^ka seem to be the underlying models in most
of the within-Siouan phonological adaptations I've run into.

I really don't think I've seen any parallel to xdh- developing as hedh- in
any Dhegiha language.  It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that
happens when English speakers who don't know the language try to work with
transcriptions of xdh (maybe with h. for x), but not usually when native
speakers deal with the language orally.  That is, I wouldn't expect xdhe
to progress to hedh(e), let alone hedhu.  But it could well be the sort of
thing that a native speaker would come up with when racking his brain for
an explanation of meaningless hedh(u)-.  As a species we really hate for
things not to be explicable.  "I don't know" is a fundamentally annoying
answer.

In any event, if this were the explanation, then the final e of xdhe seems
to disappear in hedhus^ka, meaning that it would have to be something like
hedhe + us^ka, where Rory's suggestion works as well as any.  However,
sources like Dorsey don't write hedhus^kaN and we'd hardly expect speakers
of other Siouan languages to miss the nasal in borrowing the word.

> We do know several things, but they remain pretty non-specific.  (1) it
> definitely has to do with dancing everywhere it occurs, (2) in several
> groups, this is strictly a men's society/dance. (3) the Grass Dance
> wouldn't necessarily fit with 2 "down South" however.  The pow-wow
> circuit is within the general dance category.

I think that the Hedus^hka is pretty clearly a men's society in its Omaha
form.  There is a revived society active today.  The historical society
has all the hallmarks of a Plains men's society.  It has officers, and a
characteristic regalia.  It has a genre of music realized originally as a
set of society songs, and it has a dance.  It seems to be especially
concerned with the celebration of war honors, which is characteristic of
Plains men's societies.

There are historical reports of the Omahas selling the society to the
Dakota (Yanktons, if I recall) in the middle 1800s.  I think that this
sort of transfer probably underlies what is called the "Grass Dance" in
English, because that is generally said to be derived from the Hedhus^ka,
and my understanding (from Lowie) is that the Grass Dance underlies the
Hot Dance acquired by the Missouri River groups from the Dakotas.  It
think it is generally understood at Pow Wows today that this complex -
regalia, music, dance - underlies the "straight" dancing competitions.

I am really not a specialist in Plains music or dancing or men's
societies, so I am not sure I have any or all of this right.  I am also
not sure to what extent Hedus^ka songs and dancing are unique against the
backdrop of similar practices in other societies.  It does seem that a
succession of groups found something about the complex to be new and
attractive.  It seems to have been the Plains equivalent of a dance craze
and even, without intending any disrespect, calls to mind the analog of
"the birth of Rock'n'Roll."  Suddenly everybody wanted to sing these songs
and do these dances, though they'd certainly been singing and dancing
before.

Of course, there's actually quite a lot of variation and historical
progression in the regalia and dancing as the complex has spread north and
propagated through the Pow Wow circuit.  Regalia and even details in ways
of doing the dance are seen as regional traits and good or bad depending
on what your own local standards are.  I was admiring a particularly
energetic, high-stepping, "steel springs in the legs" style once,
apparently a "northern"  style, and had an Omaha person or two point out
the subtle, understated, dignified style of an older Omaha man as their
own ideal.

There does seem to be a consensus, scholarly and also popular, that the
Omaha (I think here including the Ponca) are a source of the northern
spread of the Hedhus^ka.  I've never stumbled on anything about the
southerly spread (or prior existence) of the Hedhus^ka and have no idea
what the story might be there.  I do remember a Kiowa dance group
specifying that the next dance was an "Ohama" or maybe it was "Omaha"  or
even "Ovama" dance.  I wish I'd been able to hear clearly what he said!

> I wish I could be more positive.  I think the only way to pursue this is
> to try to track down specific semantic references in as many languages
> as possible and see how or if they fit together. That's what I've tried
> to do here, but I haven't gotten very far!

I agree, and I'd suggest further that a general attention to complexes of
this sort might be an effective strategy.  Often trying to understand how
something differs from similar things is a good way to come at its precise
character.  For example, a lot of society names incorporate an animal
reference.  The Omaha belt is specifically called a "crow."  On the other
hand, I've often thought that the details of the costume and the dancing
were vaguely reminiscent of game bird lek displays.


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 19 20:42:19 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:42:19 -0800
Subject: More regarding "wa"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312171059070.24480@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.124219.0800.>


I looked at my wa-file again, and I found one example in which wa- potentially has animate reference in Lakota:



John wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi

John WA-WA-ask-PL



can mean either 'they ask John about things' or 'they ask people about John'. Regarding the second translation, my speaker feels that wa- refers to the people being asked. However, this is the only example in hundreds of wa-clauses in which wa- seems to have animate reference. But thinking about this further, in etymologizing Lakota nouns such as



wa-makha-s^kaN

WA-earth-move.ITR

'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',



we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different way of analyzing this form?



Regina



> Notice that Dhegiha does allow wa with animate reference. I was
> momentarily taken aback by Regina's comment yesterday that Dakotan wa was
> necessarily inanimate, because of that. Somehow I had always assumed that
> wa could have a non-specific animate reference, too. Would a Dakotan
> nominalization require wic^ha- or something like that if the inspecified
> argument was animate?






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031219/d5de36f6/attachment.htm>

From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Fri Dec 19 21:49:46 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:49:46 -0700
Subject: More regarding "wa"
In-Reply-To: <20031219204219.5977.qmail@web40006.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.144946.0700.>

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> wa-makha-s^kaN
> WA-earth-move.ITR
> 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',
>
> we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different
> way of analyzing this form?

I think this sort of consideration depends critically on whether we see
wa- in nominalizations as marking the "subject" of the nominalization or a
non-specific "patient" (stative-pronoun concord) in the case frame of the
nominalization, which, of course, might be a subject.  If the latter then
it would depend on the position of wa- in the case frame.

In other words, in something like OP we'base 'saw' < wa + i + base 'cut by
pushing', is wa- a reference to the saw (something you cut things with)
or to non-specific things cut with the saw (a thing you cut non-specific
things with).

JEK


From goodtracks at GBRonline.com  Sat Dec 20 02:59:08 2003
From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:59:08 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.205908.0600.>

> One other question. In Otoe, the war dance is called "ithu's^ka" or
> "idu's^ka" (not certain). In Pawnee, I believe it's "iru's^ka". Can anyone
> shed any light on etymologies or meanings from those languages?

The Ioway-Otoe term "Iroshka", the Ponca "Hethushka" and the Pawnee term
"Iruska" are all glossed (as far back as I can remember back to the 1950s)
by community members in Oklahoma as "War Dance (Society)", even though it
does not translate to none of the terms for "war/ dance/ society".  I
believe that it is a misnomer, as is the "Pipe Dance" for the Hunka [IO =
Hunge/ HuNGe] adoption ceremony.  Perhaps, they took over the term applied
to it by non-native observers, who were quick to apply terms without
knowledge of native contexts.  Historically, it was said to be a warriors
society, but after intertribal warfare was forbidden by the government, the
society was remade over into a fellowship and benevolent society.  The whole
term is "Iroshka Wokigo".  Wokigo is the word for society, and is composed
of the recently discussed "wa-" + "u- + kigo" (in/ into; within + to feast).
Several late Otoe, Ioway elders suggested that the term meant "only the
body" from "iro" (body) + -sdaN/ -staN (only; nothing but).  Obviously, this
is folk ethmology, as are likely all the other conjectured "translations"
and word analysis.  (My opinion).

In Oklahoma, the Iroshka is held at regular times of the year among the
Otoe-Missouria [Their "Christmas" Iroshka is tomarrow, Sat. afternoon
(Dec.20th) at the tribal complex near Red Rock, OK], the Ponca at White
Eagle, the Pawnee at Pawnee and the three Osage community "districts" still
hold the Iroshka as a traditional ceremonial form with "rules &
regulations".  It is often called "straight dance".   All follow the
traditional patterns with a headman, several tail dancers, appointed water
carriers (my grandson is one for Otoe), and a closed drum with selected head
singer and his support singers.  The Otoe Iroshka has been recently
reorganized in the past several years.  The Poncas had at times two
competing societies, but not at the present.  The Pawnees have several
groups under tvarious names:  Skidi Dance, Kitkehaki Dance, Ralph Weeks
Dance, Morgan Family's Dance and the Pawnee Veterans.

It is said that the Iroska had its origins with the Lakota who passed it on
to the Omaha and Northern Hidatsa and Arickarees.  From there it evolved
into the Northern grass dance, the Southern straight dance and ironically,
the Drum Dance as found among the Ojibwe, Potawatomi and Kickapoo.  Besides
the book on the Osage Ilonska, there have been several good thesis written
on the Iroshka well researched with elders.  One is Jim Charles, 1987/ 1990.
"Songs of the Ponca Helushka", NEH Summer Seminar, American Indian Verbal
Art & Literature. (Larry Evers, Dir.). University of South Carolina.
Another is Jimmy Duncan, 1997.  "Hethushka Zani:  An Ethnohistory of the War
Dance Complex", Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Okla.  He does a
very in-depth research.  He employs many Ponca (Dhegiha) terms and phrases
with explanations.  He speaks to the connection of the society with various
sacred bundles among the Ponca, Omaha and Osage at its earliest development,
which later was altered to accommodate acculturation trends.  He proposes a
theoretical connection with Mississippian cultures, which seems a bit
reaching.  If you can get a copy, this latter study should be of much
interest and satisfy many of your questions.

Presently, another publication is in progess via J.Rex Reddick.  You can
contact him directly for more information at: Rex at crazycrow.com

> Most Poncas today say the word is an ancient term who's meaning is lost
but
> add "it means 'the war dance' or 'man dance'".
I tend to agree that the term is ancient and defies meaning.  Yet I've heard
both 'war dance' or 'man dance' used with the Poncas; however, the latter
term is less said among the Otoes & Pawnees.

>  LaFlesche (1939) translated ilon's^ka as "those who partake of thunder"
("iloN" or igthoN - thunder).
> In the 1970's I had several
> elderly Osage people tell me, quite adamantly, that ilon's^ka had nothing
to
> do with "playing" or the "eldest son". Each told me it had
> to do with "the old religion"...then they usually started to change the
> subject (the old religion being a very taboo topic of conversation).
This bears out even today.  During the four day "Ilonska" at each of the
three communities (Grey Horse, Hominy & Pawhuska), one often hears remarks
that the "old ways" were put away and replaced with the Ilonska, and the
"little drum", Native American Church.  Duncan addresses this in his thesis.

A former NudaHanga was rebuffed by his Osage relations when he formed a
mentor relationship with several northern spiritual people.  He continued on
to complete several fasting quests, sun danced and used regularly with
genuine devotion the Sacred Pipe which he kept, unto his final days.
Another prominent Osage from the Hominy district also journeyed north for a
similar introduction into the "old traditional ways.  His experience was
wholly satisfying, but like his Ponca-Osage peer, he too was chastized for
setting up a sweat purification lodge.  He at last told me that although it
was a good thing, he put it all away, including his sacred pipe, to avoid
further hastle from the Osage community and Ilonska Committee, who also were
NAC members.

> Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Wi'btha hai ho!
>


From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu  Sat Dec 20 14:34:52 2003
From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:34:52 -0600
Subject: Hethuska
Message-ID: <SAT.20.DEC.2003.083452.0600.>

From: "Louis Garcia" <Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Hethuska


> I see a book was published last year "Dance Lodges of the Omaha People:
Building from memory" by mark Awakiuni-Swetland. New York: Routledge 2001.
$75. Have you seen it? Is it any good?

Louie:
I can not tell you if the monograph is any good. I will leave that up to the
opinion of the readers. However, I can mention that the Hethushka Dance is
mentioned as it relates to how the Omaha dance lodges were utilized, but the
origins and activities of the Hethushka Society is not described. I refer
readers to Wissler's 1916 compilation and Fletcher and La Flesche's 1911
description.

There is a brief description of the Omaha Hethushka ZhiNga society including
a list of the members through the early 20th century.

In regard to John's reference to the Kiowa dance, I am inserting a note from
my friend Gus Palmer, Jr.'s recent book on Kiowa story telling:

Telling Stories the Kiowa Way

Gus Palmer, Jr.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press

2003



Omaha: 133n. 1



    ?h?ma? is the sacred war dance society of the Kiowas. Given to the
Kiowas long ago by the Omaha tribe         as a token of friendship in the
form of a sacred dance bustle, songs, and dance, the society holds a
powwow every year at the ?h?ma? ceremonial grounds west of Anadarko,
Oklahoma. Only Kiowa males         may become members of the dance society.



I hope this is useful.



Mele Kalikimaka

mark



Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska
Anthropology/Ethnic Studies
Native American Studies
Bessey Hall 132
Lincoln, NE 68588-0368
402-472-3455
FAX 402-472-9642
mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 16:34:54 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:34:54 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312191441340.8370@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.DEC.2003.083454.0800.>

There are 182 occurrences of wa- 'non-specific
patient' in my Lakota texts (University of Nebraska
Press, forthcoming). In only one of these cases (!!),
wa- lends itself to analysis as 'non-specific animate
patient' in a straightforward way:

wan?  ma-th?Nka    cha wa-w-?-wa-kiyiN          na ?
now   1SG.PAT-big  so  WA-WA-help-1SG.AG-help   and
'now I was big, so I helped (people?) with the work to
be done'

On assuming that ?kiya 'to help' is ditransitive in
that it has PAT slots for the beneficiary of the act
of helping and for the thing someone is being helped
with, one of the wa-s should express the notion of
'(help) people'. Regarding animacy of wa-, the
following example can also be taken into
consideration:

h?    thok?ya   ptebl?s^ka   ki   wich?-kte-pi
that  first     cattle       DEF  3PL.PAT-kill-PL

na    wa-ph?ta-pi
and   WA-butcher-PL
'first they killed the cows and butchered them'

Ptebl?s^ka 'cattle' is the implied referent of wa- in
wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'. But since the
(basically animate) cattle are already dead when being
butchered, does wa- still count as an animate referent
in wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'? Similarly, the
following example raises the question of whether
plants or plant parts qualify as animate or not.

cha    ey?s^na    wa-w?pta   om?ni        s^kh?
so     sometimes  WA-dig up  walk about   QUOT
'sometimes she walked around digging (up edible
roots)'

There are, of course, cases in which wa- can be taken
to refer to both animate and inanimate entities at the
same time, such as

l?    l?la  wa-kh?l   way?phika   k?ye
this  very  WA-shoot  skilful     QUOT
'he was a very skilled hunter, i.e. "skilled at
shooting things"'

Wa-khul 'shoot things' refers to the ability to hit a
target, be it animate or inanimate. So on the basis of
these data, I conclude that in Lakota discourse, usage
of wa- with exclusively animate reference, as in the
first example, is extremely rare. Intuitively, the
idea of using wa- specifically with reference to
humans still strikes me as weird, but I think the
first example can be analyzed this way.

Regina




--- Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> > wa-makha-s^kaN
> > WA-earth-move.ITR
> > 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',
> >
> > we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or
> is there a different
> > way of analyzing this form?
>
> I think this sort of consideration depends
> critically on whether we see
> wa- in nominalizations as marking the "subject" of
> the nominalization or a
> non-specific "patient" (stative-pronoun concord) in
> the case frame of the
> nominalization, which, of course, might be a
> subject.  If the latter then
> it would depend on the position of wa- in the case
> frame.
>
> In other words, in something like OP we'base 'saw' <
> wa + i + base 'cut by
> pushing', is wa- a reference to the saw (something
> you cut things with)
> or to non-specific things cut with the saw (a thing
> you cut non-specific
> things with).
>
> JEK


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From lcumberl at indiana.edu  Sat Dec 20 23:32:10 2003
From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:32:10 -0500
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <20031220163454.13096.qmail@web40008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.DEC.2003.183210.0500.>

With apologies if I?m missing something obvious, but I?m trying to understand
which wa- is which in this example:

>
> wan?  ma-th?Nka    cha wa-w-?-wa-kiyiN          na 

> now   1SG.PAT-big  so  WA-WA-help-1SG.AG-help   and
> 'now I was big, so I helped (people?) with the work to
> be done'

I find at least two examples in Boas and Deloria (1941:53) where wa- has animate
reference:

wao?hola   ?to be respectful to persons, things?
wao?kiya   ?to help people?

Shaw (1980:79) observes that when wa- ?clearly has a pronominal function and
signifies an indefinite object (usually translated as ?persons? or ?things?)
it?s [a] does not delete.? She includes waokiya ?to help people? as an example,
taken from Boas and Deloria.

What I don?t find anywhere is where w?kiya means ?to help people?, so is w?kiya
one of those coalesced words with special meaning, i.e. ?to help with the work
to be done??  If so, in this example I guess the first wa- would have to refer
to people and the second w(a)- to a specialized meaning, ?the work to be done??

Regarding the following:

> h?    thok?ya   ptebl?s^ka   ki   wich?-kte-pi
> that  first     cattle       DEF  3PL.PAT-kill-PL
>
> na    wa-ph?ta-pi
> and   WA-butcher-PL
> 'first they killed the cows and butchered them'
>
> Ptebl?s^ka 'cattle' is the implied referent of wa- in
> wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'. But since the
> (basically animate) cattle are already dead when being
> butchered, does wa- still count as an animate referent
> in wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'? Similarly, the
> following example raises the question of whether
> plants or plant parts qualify as animate or not.

I would have expected wicha-phata-pi rather than wa-phata. Could the sentence
mean something like, ?they killed the cows and then they did some butchering??

In my Assiniboine data I have the following, with wicha- twice:

phaghuNta zhena wicha-wa-o    $paN-wicha-wa-ya   chen
duck      those them 1S-shoot cook-them-1S-Caus  then/therefore
?I shot those ducks then I cooked them?


Linda


From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc  Mon Dec 22 14:53:42 2003
From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:53:42 -0600
Subject: Hethuska dance halls
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.085342.0600.>

Hi gang:
To Mark Awakuni Swetland:
I was pleasently surprised by knowing that you were on-line.
I have tried to contact Routledge but keep getting another website which
makes not a mention of your book.
I have write an account of the dance halls here at Spirit Lake (Devils Lake,
ND) and would certainly like to cite your book.
At present I am writng just to get the stuff on paper and will refine it
later.
Any one who would like a copy I could post it here, but fell it is off
topic, though it does have many Dakota terms. E-mail me off line for an
electronic copy.
Toksta ake,
Louis Garcia
Cankdeska Cikana Community College
Ft. Totten, ND


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Mon Dec 22 16:54:04 2003
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:54:04 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.105404.0600.>

Dakotan wicha- implies animate plural patient,
like English "them".  Does it also imply that
the topic it refers to is specific, definite,
known to the listener, rather than indefinite
or hypothetical?  (I recall that waN and waN'z^i
in Lakhota make that distinction.)  If I use
wicha-, does it imply that I am referring to
a particular, known set of animate beings, or
could I also use it to refer to 'folks in general'?


Linda wrote:
> I find at least two examples in Boas and Deloria
> (1941:53) where wa- has animate reference:
>
> wao'hola   'to be respectful to persons, things'
> wao'kiya   'to help people'

This wa- might be referring to 'people in general',
but might it not as well be referring to the
quality or practice of being respectful or helpful,
without any particular object of interest?  (I'm
thinking of John's suggestion that wa- serves to
background the object of a transitive verb, so as
to emphasize the activity rather than the object
of a particular action.)

Rory


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 22 23:15:43 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:15:43 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <1071963130.3fe4dbfa96d3c@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.151543.0800.>

Regarding (hypothetical) animacy of wa- and
non-specificity of wicha-, here's some more examples;
they are just a couple of hours old:

(1)	okichize el ota      wicha-kte-pi
	war        in  many  WICHA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the war'

(2)	*okichize el  ota       wa-kte-pi
	war           in  many  WA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the war'

I hope that with ota 'many', I have created a PAT that
is non-specific enough to "deserve" being
cross-referenced by wa-, at least theoretically.
Still, the wa-version (2) is ungrammatical -- the
affix that must be used here is wicha-. While in the
above examples, the PAT is human, in (3) and (4),
animals are the implied referents in the PAT slot:

(3)	owichakte  el ota       wicha-kte-pi
	slaughter   in  many   WICHA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the slaughter'

(4)	*owichakte el  ota       wa-kte-pi
	slaughter     in  many   WA-kill-PL
	'many were killed in the slaughter'

These examples, contra Shaw (1980), might be taken as
proving my intuition about the non-animate reference
of wa-. Thus, wicha-, rather than wa-, codes
non-specific animate PATs.
The form wawokiya 'to help people with something' in
my previous post, however, remains a grain in the
ointment. My speaker feels that in this case, wa-
indeed expresses the notion of 'people in general'.


> > h?    thok?ya   ptebl?s^ka   ki   wich?-kte-pi
> > that  first     cattle       DEF  3PL.PAT-kill-PL
> >
> > na    wa-ph?ta-pi
> > and   WA-butcher-PL
> > 'first they killed the cows and butchered them'
> >
>
> I would have expected wicha-phata-pi rather than
> wa-phata. Could the sentence
> mean something like, ?they killed the cows and then
> they did some butchering??

This is exactly how I would translate it.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Dec 23 15:08:44 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:08:44 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <TUE.23.DEC.2003.090844.0600.>

How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
meaning.

Or maybe not.

> (2) *okichize el  ota       wa-kte-pi
> war           in  many  WA-kill-PL
> 'many were killed in the war'

> (4) *owichakte el  ota       wa-kte-pi
> slaughter     in  many   WA-kill-PL
> 'many were killed in the slaughter'

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Dec 28 15:43:15 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:43:15 -0600
Subject: Sunday evening television.
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.094315.0600.>

I see that ABC television is advertising a TV movie entitled "Dream Keeper" for
this evening.  I don't know if it will contain any spoken Lakota or even if the
stories will be accurate.  But unless you want to watch "Die Hard" for the third
time, this may be the best bet for the evening.  The ABC trailer for the movie
reads:  "While driving through South Dakota, a Lakota recounts legends and
stories to a 16-year-old."  One of the Hollywood reviewers writing for the local
paper here yesterday liked it.

Bob


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 28 16:59:44 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:59:44 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <001001c3c966$bb01cb50$08b5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.085944.0800.>

--- "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
> How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
> the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
> the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> meaning.

I asked my speaker to translate this. She gave me:

okichize         el  ota  wicha-kte-pi
battle/slaughter in  many 3PL.PAT-kill-PL

The reaction I got when bringing up

okichize el ota wa-kte-pi

as a possible alternative translation was immediate
and vigorous rejection. But I suspect that in other
Siouan languages, wa- or its equivalents might be
acceptable in such contexts. It could be that
functional shifts have taken place across Siouan
regarding wa-.

Regina

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From munro at ucla.edu  Sun Dec 28 18:25:55 2003
From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:25:55 -0800
Subject: Sunday evening television.
In-Reply-To: <006601c3cd59$7094cfd0$2ab5ed81@Rankin>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.102555.0800.>

I went to a screening of a 2-hour version of the miniseries last month
(the interim director of our American Indian Studies Center, Hanay
Geiogamah (a Kiowa professor of Theater Arts), was involved with the
production, and we heard a discussion by Halmi and a number of the stars
afterwards). My husband and I both enjoyed the film quite a lot. Some
aspects of the main plot are a bit predictable, I guess, but the acting
is very good and it's certainly the most Indian actors you'll see on
mainstream TV for a while. I don't recall much Indian language in it --
but it's a nice concept; we recommend it. The stories are not just
Lakhota, but also Kiowa, Mohawk, and a number of others.

Pam

R. Rankin wrote:

>I see that ABC television is advertising a TV movie entitled "Dream Keeper" for
>this evening.  I don't know if it will contain any spoken Lakota or even if the
>stories will be accurate.  But unless you want to watch "Die Hard" for the third
>time, this may be the best bet for the evening.  The ABC trailer for the movie
>reads:  "While driving through South Dakota, a Lakota recounts legends and
>stories to a 16-year-old."  One of the Hollywood reviewers writing for the local
>paper here yesterday liked it.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Dec 28 19:51:21 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:51:21 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.135121.0600.>

> > How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
> > the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
> > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> > meaning.

> The reaction I got when bringing up

> okichize el ota wa-kte-pi

> as a possible alternative translation was immediate
> and vigorous rejection.

that's interesting, OK.  I wonder if the sentence with WA- could mean anything
in any context.  I still find it curious that it can't refer to killing with the
particular direct object removed.  Maybe something like "there was killing here
and there" or the like.  I guess 'kill' pretty much automatically implies an
animate obj. though.

Bob


From napshawin at msn.com  Sun Dec 28 23:35:46 2003
From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:35:46 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <SUN.28.DEC.2003.173546.0600.>

"THERE WAS A LOT OF KILLING IN THE WAR/SLAUGHTER."
Possible translations.
Wichakasota pi or pelo.
Means a slaughter. All were killed.
"there was a lot of killing in the war."
Okichize ekta ota wichakte pi or pelo.
Ol-ota wichaktepi okichize el.
Okichize wan el ota wichakte pelo.
Violet Catches, miye


>From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>
>Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
>Subject: Re: animate wa-
>Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:51:21 -0600
>
> > > How might one say "There was a lot of killing in
> > > the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> > > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see
> > > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> > > meaning.
>
> > The reaction I got when bringing up
>
> > okichize el ota wa-kte-pi
>
> > as a possible alternative translation was immediate
> > and vigorous rejection.
>
>that's interesting, OK.  I wonder if the sentence with WA- could mean
>anything
>in any context.  I still find it curious that it can't refer to killing
>with the
>particular direct object removed.  Maybe something like "there was killing
>here
>and there" or the like.  I guess 'kill' pretty much automatically implies
>an
>animate obj. though.
>
>Bob
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet
access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup


From rankin at ku.edu  Mon Dec 29 15:24:16 2003
From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:24:16 -0600
Subject: animate wa-
Message-ID: <MON.29.DEC.2003.092416.0600.>

Many thanks for that yelo!

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "CATCHES VIOLET" <napshawin at msn.com>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: animate wa-


> "THERE WAS A LOT OF KILLING IN THE WAR/SLAUGHTER."
> Possible translations.
> Wichakasota pi or pelo.
> Means a slaughter. All were killed.
> "there was a lot of killing in the war."
> Okichize ekta ota wichakte pi or pelo.
> Ol-ota wichaktepi okichize el.
> Okichize wan el ota wichakte pelo.
> Violet Catches, miye


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 29 22:49:22 2003
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:49:22 -0800
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-F21ZjyhuvS53rK00084ac8@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <MON.29.DEC.2003.144922.0800.>

Yes, this is very helpful indeed.
Wicha- all over the place -- rather than wa-.

Philamayaye
Regina

--- CATCHES VIOLET <napshawin at msn.com> wrote:
> "THERE WAS A LOT OF KILLING IN THE WAR/SLAUGHTER."
> Possible translations.
> Wichakasota pi or pelo.
> Means a slaughter. All were killed.
> "there was a lot of killing in the war."
> Okichize ekta ota wichakte pi or pelo.
> Ol-ota wichaktepi okichize el.
> Okichize wan el ota wichakte pelo.
> Violet Catches, miye
>
>
> >From: "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>
> >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> >To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> >Subject: Re: animate wa-
> >Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:51:21 -0600
> >
> > > > How might one say "There was a lot of killing
> in
> > > > the war/slaughter."  ??  I suppose the PP and
> > > > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to
> see
> > > > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that
> > > > meaning.
> >
> > > The reaction I got when bringing up
> >
> > > okichize el ota wa-kte-pi
> >
> > > as a possible alternative translation was
> immediate
> > > and vigorous rejection.
> >
> >that's interesting, OK.  I wonder if the sentence
> with WA- could mean
> >anything
> >in any context.  I still find it curious that it
> can't refer to killing
> >with the
> >particular direct object removed.  Maybe something
> like "there was killing
> >here
> >and there" or the like.  I guess 'kill' pretty much
> automatically implies
> >an
> >animate obj. though.
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Take advantage of our limited-time introductory
> offer for dial-up Internet
> access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Dec 31 08:48:01 2003
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:48:01 -0700
Subject: animate wa-
In-Reply-To: <20031229224922.6587.qmail@web40004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.014801.0700.>

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> Yes, this is very helpful indeed. Wicha- all over the place -- rather
> than wa-.

I've been rather caught up in Christmas and family matters, so I'm just
catching up.  However, one question that has been nagging at me here.
I've always thought of wic^ha as being an animate (or, better, "human"?)
third person plural object marker, an inflection, with wa serving as the
indefinite object marker - essentially derivational rather than
inflectional - and covering the full range of human to inanimate
"indefinite" objects (or patients?).  However, it appears to me from the
discussion that, while wic^ha does have that "definite object"
inflectional role, wic^ha and wa also act as a pair in the area of
"indefinite objects," with wic^ha covering the human cases, and wa the
rest.

My question then is whether this corrected is something Dakotanists have
always been aware of, and I have missed, even though like a typical
Siouanist I tend to approach the family through Boas & Deloria, or is this
something that Dakotanists are just coming to terms with, too?I take it
from Linda's remarks that Dakotanists are at least aware of some examples
where was occurs in place of expected wic^ha?

I can say that in Omaha-Ponca it appears to me that wa there covers the
whole range of wic^ha and wa uses.  From what little I understand of the
rest of Dhegiha and of Winnebago-Chiwere, I think things are similar
there, too, though perhaps with some significant differences of detail in
Winnebago-Chiwere.  But, if, as I have always assumed, wic^ha is a Dakotan
innovation, replacing some uses of wa, then maybe this would account for
any residual exceptional uses of wa preserved lexically in Dakotan?

In addition, this insight into wic^ha, whether it is new or merely new to
me, might help to clarify whether wa in nominalizations acts as "head
marker" (or mark of nominalization) or merely occurs to code an indefinite
patient which occurs within the frame of the nominalization.  If the
latter, then we would presumably expect to find wic^ha for indefinite
human patients in nominalizations, instead of wa, which, in fact, we do in
forms like wic^ha'khipi 'robbery', wic^ha'kic^opi 'invitation',
wic^ha'ktepi 'killing', wic^ha'k?upi 'giving', etc.

'Murder(er)' is a convenient example here, because kill is straightforward
derivationally and a more or less canonical transitive verb.  Here I see
that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte 'murderer' and for
the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'.  Interestingly, for the active
verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) and also, with
locative incorporands thi'lkte/thi'lwakte and thio'kte/thio'wakte.
Apologies for putting Bruce in the spot, here, but he's a lot more
explicit about morphology than Buechel or Riggs.  Buechel does include an
enttry thi'wic^hakte 'murderer; to commit murder', which might or might
not suggest thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte instead, but perhaps his thi'kte entry
implies thi'kte/thi'wakte as I have always assumed it does?

A question this immediately raises, is whether examples in texts or other
data suggest that the range of uses of wic^ha has been expanding
historically at the expense of wa?  Is thi'wic^hakte - as a particular
example of wic^ha use - replacing thi'wakte in nominalizations or
indefinite object cases?  If so, we'd probably expect wa in older examples
where today we find wic^ha.  We might find some "newer" pattern uses in
older materials, too, or at least this is the case in Omaha-Ponca for
other innovations:  modern day uses tend to occur sporadically in earlier
materials, too.  An example would be the modern practice of inflecting
daNbe 'to see' doubly as attaN'be 'I ...', dhas^taN'be 'you ...'.  Mostly
Dorsey reports ttaN'be, s^taNbe, but a few speakers in his day were using
the "modern" forms.  It might be a bit teleological to say "using them
already."  Perhaps with a large enough sample size any somewhat unusual
verb might be found at least sometimes doubly inflected in the pattern
regular + irregular - at any point in Omaha-Ponca linguistic history.
Double inflection certainly occurs sporadically in varying degrees
throughout Siouan, with various verbs or classes of verbs.  But in the
case of Dakotan wic^ha we have something specific and unique and connected
exclusively with Dakotan.  We have at least 0 and n to draw a line
through.

JEK