More regarding "wa"

[Tom Leonard]

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
>
>