From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 3 04:36:50 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:36:50 -0600 Subject: Out of Touch Message-ID: The University of Colorado will be making extensive modifications to its email system over the July 4th weekend, retiring its oldest mail server. This entails shutting down also the slightly newer server that I use for University mail, including monitoring the list. This will last from late July 3rd through the weekend. I do not believe this will interrupt use of the list, though it may. However, I will be out of touch myself, unable to respond to service requests, see list postings, etc. Any mail to me will eventually go through, when service is restored. The same applies to mail to the list if that is affected. I will probably be shifting to a new mail server myself afterwards, as they are encouraging this. I'll let the list know when I start that process, in case it also affects my ability to carry out functions. Hopefully any affects will be soon remedied. I don't really expect any problems, but I am experiencing a certain amount of trepidation ... since the requirement to use ssh to access web pages I haven't been able to get back into my web page ... technically possible, but I haven't quite pulled it off. FrontPage and the scp client aren't quite as ready to communicate to talk as the documentation implies. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 00:47:34 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:47:34 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm getting that from one or more explicit charts with commentary > in the Dorsey dictionary, or some of the other notes on reels in > Mark's collection. I haven't worked that out on my own from the > texts, so I may be out on a limb here. From Box 1, Reel 22, > Slide 7: > > akHa', cl. the sing. or collective sub. of an action, that is > performed of his or their own accord, and not by request ... These examples were originally presented in: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=siouan&P=R792 The version I have comes from the NAA 4800 Dorsey Papers, Item 120 "Envelope marked "C/egiha Grammatical Notes. Not copied on slips Nov/93." The table illustrating the interactions of aspect and proximity marking doesn't lend itself to exact reproduction, but by rearranging things a bit I can give as follows. I have changed the orthography to the one I use in email and indicated my own comments with my initials. Sentences in pairs to be glossed as follows. JEK x.1 "The horse eats or ate the corn (complete action)" x.2 "The horse is eating the corn (continuous or incomplete action)" Preceding quoted glosses and parenthetical notes are Dorsey's exact words. So the first sentence in each pair below is perfective, and the second is imperfective, though these terms are not perhaps quite apt. JEK Dorsey's first column (JEK): "By Consent or Command" (Dorsey's words, i.e., obviative subject JEK) A = "if standing" A.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe'e ha A.2 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe thaN ha B = "if moving" B.1 s^aNge dhiN wahaba khe dhathe'e ha B.2 s^aNge dhiN wahaba khe dhathe dhiN ha C = "if sitting" C.1 s^aNge dhiNkhe wahaba khe dhathe'e ha C.2 s^aNge dhiNkhe wahaba khe dhathe dhiNkhe ha D = "if reclining" D.1 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe'e ha D.2 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe khe ha E = "if standing, past time; action occurring then, not now" E.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe dhaN s^ti E.2 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe thaN dhaN s^ti [thaN + dhaN? spurious? JEK] F = "if standing, past time (present time not excluded)." F.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhate the ha [no F.2 example JEK] So the pattern for the continuous obviative (x.2 examples) is to use the obviative (or object) articles with the subject and with the verb (as a progressive auxiliary). JEK The pattern for the completive is to replace the auxiliary with =e. JEK In the past time forms (evidentials, like Turkish perfects) there is probably no contrast of x.1 and x.2, and the single form has the unmarked verb stem followed by dhaN(s^ti) or the. E.2 is probably spurious. JEK "Without Consent or Command" (Dorsey's words, i.e., proximate subject JEK) A = "if standing" A.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhathai ha A.2 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhate akha ha B = "if moving" B.1 s^aNge ama wahaba khe dhathai ha B.2 s^aNge ama wahaba khe dhathe ama ha C = "if sitting" No proximate examples. JEK D = "if reclining" No proximate examples. JEK E = "if standing, past time; action occurring then, not now" E.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhathai dhaN s^ti [no E.2 example JEK] F = "if standing, past time (present time not excluded)." F.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhatai the ha [no F.2 example] So the pattern for the continuous proximate (x.2 examples) is to use the proximate (or subject) articles with the subject and with the verb (as a progressive auxiliary). JKE The pattern for the completive is to use the plural/proximate marker =i. JEK In the past time forms (evidentials, like Turkish perfects) there is probably no contrast of x.1 and x.2, and the single form has the plural/proximate form followed by dhaN(s^ti) or the. JEK "All in dicty; not yet in Gr./86" (JOD's words) ===== My comments: It seems doubtful that =e (the final e in dhate'e) is acutally the marker of perfective obviation in the A-D.1 obviative examples. Examples without it occur in texts, and this marker is also found with first persons. It is also clearly not a variant of =i, being actually opposed to it in this table. Moreover =e does not condition ablaut, while =i does. My suggestion is that =e is a marker appropriate to the third person obviative perfective context, but not indicating it per se, or restricted to it. I'd suggest a new information or focus marker, something analogous to "It is/was the horse that ate the corn." or "The horse is the one who ate the corn." Note that "by consent or command" is a variant of Dorsey's reports elsewhere that obviative forms indicate that the subject was out of site while acting or acted on behalf of someone else. By contrast proximate forms indicate that the subject was visible or acted for itself. In the case of the horse eating the corn, this means, pragmatically, that a horse eating corn on its own initiative is doing so improperly. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 01:02:35 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:02:35 -0600 Subject: We're Baaa-ack Message-ID: It looks like the mail servers are ready already. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 01:01:23 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:01:23 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Well, actually, this seems to make the issue one of akHa' vs. > tHoN, rather than =i vs. no =i. The distinction between third person singular proximate and obviative in progressives (or imperfectives) is marked by the article used with the subject (akha/ama vs. thaN/dhiN/dhiNkhe/khe) and also by the use of the same two sets as as the auxiliaries with the verb. The distinction between third person singular proximate and obviative in non-progressives (perfectives) is indicated by the article used with the subject (akha/ama vs. thaN/dhiN/dhiNkhe/khe again) and the use or non-use of =i/=bi with the verb. The use of =i or =bi is conditioned by other contextual factors. > And then there's that intriguing =e in the tHoN case, which doesn't > cause a-grade ablaut. I discussed that in the preceding letter. > Perhaps the "independent of outside influence" has > to do only with the proximate positionals akHa' and ama', > and not with =i and =bi, though these two sets certainly do > seem to like each other. Yes. Though the overall behavior is complex the general observation is that both article/auxiliary use and =(b)(i) use serve to mark the proximate/obviative (or without conset/with consent) distinction. When both occur, they should agree. Matters are much complicated by such cross-cutting issues as use of the "obviative subject" articles to mark objects and oblique sentence articles, by the use of =(b)(i) to mark plurals, and by the occurrence of =e in some contexts for separate reasons. Also, by the positional gender control of forms within each article set, and by the direct/reported contrast marked in by =i vs. =bi. And whatever is marked by nothing vs. =e in non-progressive obviatives. This must be rather difficult to approach begining students with. "Bad news, class! Today we start the definite article and third person singular." JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 01:50:45 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:50:45 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Yes! That's a very interesting point. It appears that all the cases > of future + positional cause the tte to ablaut to tta. > > tta miNkHe I-future ... > tta tHe constrained future > > What's especially interesting to me here is that the a-grade ablaut > occurs, not just before (probably) every positional, but even before > the conjugated form of each positional. > > Wouldn't this suggest that what is causing ablaut is not the passive > front end of a particle that happened to begin with a- (e.g. an > aboriginal *=api), but rather a separate particle *=a- that once stood > regularly in front of particles of a definite grammatical class? Bob said I might say something about this, but I've hesitated, because I've said an awful lot about it in the past, and I think it may be rather in oversupply for the market. However, I've thought of a way to say things a bit differently, so I'll try it. I'd have to say that =api (plural/proximate) is a rather different case from "positionals in various uses," and need not be governed by the same factors. After all, there are only so many vowels to work with: different cases of "a" need not arise from the same factors, or, if they do, may arise at such different times in the history of the source of "a" in question as to be effectively unrelated. However, I agreee that the positional cases in particular suggest an independent morpheme -a-. I suspect the context is less of a case of what follows than of what precedes, e.g., a nominalization. What I've argued, in effect, is that =a is a nominalizer of some sort, perhaps originally an article, but now perceived (by linguists anyway) as conditioned by the following later layer of nominalizers (the positional articles), but originally present in its own right. The progress of the phenomenon would be something like this. Stage I: Add =a to mark nominalizations (or some of them). We're necessarily a little vague about specific contexts, as the remnants of the system are much worn down and probably extensively reformulated. Stage II: Some sort of vowel change (e > a) occurs at the end of (some) nominalized forms. Stage III: Add positionals to mark some sorts of nominalizations. I'm saying nominalizations, but of course, it's really "nouns," and the nouns are nominalizations only if they happen to be clauses ending in verbs. The actual marker of nominalizations is probably "nothing." But once you have a noun you can add an appropriate "post-nominal" particle (like an article). If you add the same particle to all nouns it is beginning to function something like a nominalizer, especially when added to a verb. In the nature of things Stages I and II and II and III, maybe even all three must overlap, though Stage I begins before II begins before III. In the end, however, you have a system with Stage III and the observed rule that certain forms change e to a when a positional follows them. In some cases the rule about adding -a or changing to it may have been lost. Certainly a great many nouns do not end in -a or reflexes of *-ra (with epenthetic -r- after vowels). In fact, a-final nouns with clearly added -a are only really common in Dakotan. Elsewhere those nouns today end in -e or nothing. In other cases the -a- may have been accidentally reassociated with the following positional (e.g., the OP proximate subject articles ama and akha). In other cases =ra (< *-ra) may still be taken to be something like an article, and positionals may still fall something rather short of being articles, though occurring with some NPs, this being essentially the case in Winnebago. In Dakotan -a and -ya (< *-ra) are variable endings of some nouns (when the nouns are not incorporated or when -e doesn't replace -a in possessed forms) and =ki is the (main) article, while positionals are mostly used only with verbs, as auxiliaries. I keep offering this as a hypothesis, though it hasn't exactly taken folks by storm. Many details need to be worked out. It doesn't account for the core of -e ~ -a phenomena in the verb, with pluralization, for example, and there may or may not be good examples of *a as a demonstrative. Also, as there are maybe some traces =ki in Southeastern, figuring out whether and how *=ki enters into things is also a definite consideration. I've sometimes wondered if -e as a noun final might not be from =a=ki with intervocalic loss of -k-. If *=ki was lost throughout Mississippi Valley and only, perhaps, restored analogically in Dakotan from some sort of relict context, that might explain a lot. I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally nominalizations, i.e., what was originally (and still is structurally) "the horse's eating of the corn" or, better, "the horse which is eating the corn" is now functionally "the horse is eating the corn." This sort of progression occurs commonly in language. These nominalizations do not have -a-. The verbs involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a- in the inclusive inflected forms. Though I don't know why, I think those Dhegiha futures in =tta=miNkhe, ... are also nominalized, from *=tk=a=POSITIONAL. This is probably an old pattern, because I suspect that those Hidatsa and Crow inflected futures are worn down remnants of the same structure, with only accented syllables of the auxiliary remaining. It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained, but I gather it doesn't. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 05:19:47 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:19:47 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Anyone interested in sharing a room for the conference? I guess a male non-smoker would work best! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jul 5 15:44:22 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:44:22 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Sure. If that's OK and no one has already asked. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:20 AM To: Siouan List Subject: Anyone interested in sharing a room for the conference? I guess a male non-smoker would work best! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jul 5 17:56:39 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:56:39 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > tta miNkHe I-future > tta tHe constrained future > JEK: I'd have to say that =api (plural/proximate) is a rather different case from "positionals in various uses," and need not be governed by the same factors. RLR: I'd agree with that. My analysis of [a] as suffix-initial is for 'imperative', 'negative' and 'plural/prox'. I agree that continuatives are different. I did, in fact, do a handout for a comparative syntax seminar I gave about 3 years ago in which I treated all of the miNkhe, etc. forms as collapsed bi-clausal constructions, so I think John and I are thinking along the same lines. I'll take a look at what I did and see if it would make a good conference paper -- my recollection is that it sort of baffled my students, so maybe it doesn't make much sense. I don't think it followed John's progression of grammaticalization in any event. > JEK: I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally nominalizations,... These nominalizations do not have -a-. The verbs involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a- in the inclusive inflected forms. >Though I don't know why, I think those Dhegiha futures in =tta=miNkhe, ... are also nominalized, from *=tk=a=POSITIONAL. This is probably an old pattern, because I suspect that those Hidatsa and Crow inflected futures are worn down remnants of the same structure, with only accented syllables of the auxiliary remaining. It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained, but I gather it doesn't. RLR: Sorry, I'm sitting here on Sat. a.m. half asleep, but I don't know what you're referring to with *=tk. Could you possibly mean *kt- the 'irrealis' marker? Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 20:26:36 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:26:36 -0600 Subject: No subject In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D165AAE@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Nope, I'm still looking. I wasn't sure if you were available, being a little vague on where in the Old NW you had family. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 20:32:33 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:32:33 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164CC6@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > JEK: I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally > nominalizations,... These nominalizations do not have -a-. The verbs > involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as > a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a- > in the inclusive inflected forms. I should probably have said "though a-ma and a-kha have *an* -a-," thinking about this, not taking the identity of morphs for granted. > JEK: ... It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained [in the Crow > and Hidatsa futures], but I gather it doesn't. > > RLR: Sorry, I'm sitting here on Sat. a.m. half asleep, but I don't know what > you're referring to with *=tk. Could you possibly mean *kt- the 'irrealis' Oops, yes, I definitely meant -kt-. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jul 6 02:18:27 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:18:27 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Wabash and Indianapolis Indiana. I already saw them last month after going to Bloomington. I plan on driving up and back unless there's a train. A roomie to share the $$$ would be a good thing. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 3:27 PM To: Siouan List Subject: RE: Nope, I'm still looking. I wasn't sure if you were available, being a little vague on where in the Old NW you had family. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 11 05:16:10 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:16:10 -0600 Subject: Dorsey and West Virginia; Sentence Final Markers Message-ID: I knew there was a reason I associated James O. Dorsey with West Virginia, apart from the fact that I seem to recall that he's buried somewhere in Western Maryland - Harper's Ferry? Anyway, like all of us, he occasionally took notes on envelopes, and NAA 4800 Dorsey Papers: Dhegiha 120 includes one of them, which is addressed Rev. J. Owen Dorsey, Hedgesville, Berkeley Co., W. Va. The postmark reads Omaha Agency Neb Mar 1, but I can't make out the year. The note on the envelope appears to be men say ...[a?][n?]au yes women say .... ena'+ (?) In other words, a note on sentence final forms. These appear to be variants of the 'announcement' marker. I think I've sen adha(u) and edha, too, maybe in song texts. Above ths in the xerox on another slip is a list of "Punctuation signs (oral)" [i.e., sentence final forms] for a number of Siouan languages: do ha, he ke ke-i s' ts - -k [Sa] O[m] I[o] Ot Ma Hid Crw These are declaratives. Under O is written Qu, K & Os, though I think this annotation is not quite right. Below this is he a a'haN a'daN a'dha hai-a ehaN+ edaN+ e'dhe ha-he adaN ba, badaN These are additional Omaha (and Ponca) forms. I'm using N for raised n and dh for cent-sign (edh) V' is an accented vowel. In the first row he looks like the feminine declarative again, but I don't recognize hai-a or ha-he, so I'm not sure what he's getting at here. A simple a is the interrogative (or female imperative). AdaN is something like 'therefore' and also occurs finally in quoted questions. Ba and BadaN would be -bi + a and -bi + adaN, for cases where -bi precedes these markers. Dorsey generally lists contractions of -bi and -tta with following elements as distinct elements, e.g., biama, bas^e, baz^i, ttadaN, ttathe, ttas^e, etc. AhaN and ehaN occur with exclamations. For adaN and edaN see above. Adha and edhe are glossed 'indeed' in the texts and might be called emphatic. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 11 06:09:55 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:09:55 -0600 Subject: Winnebago =ire In-Reply-To: <3EEEDAC7.5010401@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > The idea that -wi is a general pluralizer is not quite correct. It is > used to pluralize first and second person prefixes of the actor and > undergoer series of pronominal prefixes. I never saw it pluralizing a > 3sg which is zero in Hocank. The example you cited from Lipkind - if it > really exists - is certainly not the standard form. I did not come > across the form xawi as a regular form for 3pl-bury. Both forms we are > talking about are in complementary distribution. I thought I would look to see if there were any evidence that Lipkind wasn't totally off track in this assertion, tbough I'm not sure where he might have made it. Was it perhaps Sussman? The Siouan Archives copy of SUssman, second file, contains wi 'general plurality'. Lipkind's lack of a table of contents makes it hard, sometimes, to find things in, but the discussion of -wi vs. -ire that I've noticed in a quick scan is on pp. 37-8 and does not include -wi with a third person. See also p. 7, for a discussion of -wi and ablaut. However, looking in the Winnebago texts in the Siouan Archives I find: hoc^iNc^i(N)=niNk=wi= ra 'boys' (as a vocative) boy DIM ??? DEF nigwadjirekdjawi '(they) come after you' niNgoo= aji-re= kja= wi you invite they set out will ??? I suspect that in the second case the =wi pluralizes the object you. Perhaps vocatives are also taken as second persons? This is certainly worth pursuing a little further, if only to determine when and how the confusion arose. JEK From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Mon Jul 14 20:40:15 2003 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:40:15 -0500 Subject: Mandan Place Names Message-ID: Hi gang: I saw this 'paper' listed in the archives. Carter, R. T. Jr. "Maximilians Ruture Vocabulary: Philogical Evidence and Mandan Phonology". Proceedings from the 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. University of Kansas 1991. Can any tell me if Mr. Carter discusses Mandan place names? I tried to borrow this publication through Inter-Library Loan but they can't seem to find anyone who has a copy. If he does discuss places names - can some one please send me a copy? Thank you, Louie G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 21 04:53:50 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:53:50 -0600 Subject: Mandan Place Names In-Reply-To: <000a01c34a48$217ac2e0$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Louis Garcia wrote: > I saw this 'paper' listed in the archives. > > Carter, R. T. Jr. "Maximilians Ruture Vocabulary: Philogical Evidence > and Mandan Phonology". Proceedings from the 1990 Mid-America > Linguistics Conference. University of Kansas 1991. > > Can any tell me if Mr. Carter discusses Mandan place names? I tried to > borrow this publication through Inter-Library Loan but they can't seem > to find anyone who has a copy. If he does discuss places names - can > some one please send me a copy? Louis, I don't think I can help with this directly. I am missing one or two of the MidAmerica Conference Proceedings in which some Siouan and Caddoan Conference papers were published, and all Proceedings are in the unpacked "journals" boxes since my last move. I am, however, very determined that this will be my last move for a very long time, if I have anythign to say about it. However, I do know that MALC proceedings are distributed by the University that sponsored the particular meeting in question, and it loks like that would be the U of Kansas. So I would write to the Department of Linguistics at the University of Kansas - can probably find email contact stuff at their web site, for that matter - and ask if they have a copy for sale. Most likely they do, though I can't promise anything. It might take a bit of time and effort to get them to locate the leftover, but maybe not. Or try ILL with this information. MALC is no where near as prestigious as CLS or BLS or even NELS and they don't have a central repository for proceedings, and libraries don't always feel that having copies of the proceedings of even these is worthwhile, but the papers should be available somewhere. Carter left the list when he left South Dakota. I have the impresion he might be in China now, though I'm not absolutely positive. He's not currently on the list. My recollection of the paper - from hearing it delivered - is that it doesn't deal with placenames at all, though it might logically mention some. Instead it concentrates on differences noted by Maximillien and some similarities with the variant forms in Hollow's dictionary. JEK From Ogalala2 at aol.com Tue Jul 22 10:00:28 2003 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:00:28 EDT Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 22 13:54:53 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:54:53 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: Hi Ted, Here's the info. bob ******************* Hi Everyone, General Information: As has been mentioned, the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan conference is quickly approaching. General information can be found at our website at . Please check it out. Abstracts are due July 3rd. The early date is so we can try and get the information into the LSA brochure (Names, titles etc.). Please use e-mail as I seldom get to campus in the summer and I don't want to leave anyone out. Lodging: We originally had planned to use the Ramada Inn for our lodging but it recently burned down. Our new hotel of choice is the Clarion. We receive a discount rate of $69.00/night. (Just let them know that you are with the LSA). I would suggest making reservations sooner rather than latter as there is some other event that weekend which has nothing to do with Linguistics. The toll free number for the Clarion is: 877-533-1200. It is located at 3600 Dunkel Dr., Lansing, MI. (East Lansing is right across the street). It is close to the university, a little under a mile from the student center. (I'm not sure where we will be meeting yet). Alternative lodging can be found on campus at the Kellogg center, although prices range from $69.00 - $89.00. There are also several other places on campus but the Clarion is the cheapest lodging close by. If you are interested in other options, please let me know. Parasession: The conference dates will be Friday and Saturday August 8th & 9th. There will be an informal syntax parasession on August 7th. The topic we had previously discussed is "junction/juncture". Which means it is pretty wide open. Nothing formal need be done for this although I would like to know who is interested in attending and/or presenting so that we can arrange for a space. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you all at the conference. Best wishes, John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: Ogalala2 at aol.com [mailto:Ogalala2 at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: 2003 SACLC Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 22 14:04:56 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:04:56 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: Sorry, apparently I hit "reply" instead of "forward". Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:55 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: RE: 2003 SACLC Hi Ted, Here's the info. bob ******************* Hi Everyone, General Information: As has been mentioned, the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan conference is quickly approaching. General information can be found at our website at . Please check it out. Abstracts are due July 3rd. The early date is so we can try and get the information into the LSA brochure (Names, titles etc.). Please use e-mail as I seldom get to campus in the summer and I don't want to leave anyone out. Lodging: We originally had planned to use the Ramada Inn for our lodging but it recently burned down. Our new hotel of choice is the Clarion. We receive a discount rate of $69.00/night. (Just let them know that you are with the LSA). I would suggest making reservations sooner rather than latter as there is some other event that weekend which has nothing to do with Linguistics. The toll free number for the Clarion is: 877-533-1200. It is located at 3600 Dunkel Dr., Lansing, MI. (East Lansing is right across the street). It is close to the university, a little under a mile from the student center. (I'm not sure where we will be meeting yet). Alternative lodging can be found on campus at the Kellogg center, although prices range from $69.00 - $89.00. There are also several other places on campus but the Clarion is the cheapest lodging close by. If you are interested in other options, please let me know. Parasession: The conference dates will be Friday and Saturday August 8th & 9th. There will be an informal syntax parasession on August 7th. The topic we had previously discussed is "junction/juncture". Which means it is pretty wide open. Nothing formal need be done for this although I would like to know who is interested in attending and/or presenting so that we can arrange for a space. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you all at the conference. Best wishes, John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: Ogalala2 at aol.com [mailto:Ogalala2 at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: 2003 SACLC Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jul 22 15:42:28 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:42:28 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: That's okay. Some of us other laggards can use the update too. Rory "Rankin, Robert L" To: "'siouan at lists.colorado.edu'" Sent by: owner-siouan at lists.c cc: olorado.edu Subject: RE: 2003 SACLC 07/22/2003 09:04 AM Please respond to siouan Sorry, apparently I hit "reply" instead of "forward". Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:55 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: RE: 2003 SACLC Hi Ted, Here's the info. bob ******************* Hi Everyone, General Information: As has been mentioned, the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan conference is quickly approaching. General information can be found at our website at . Please check it out. Abstracts are due July 3rd. The early date is so we can try and get the information into the LSA brochure (Names, titles etc.). Please use e-mail as I seldom get to campus in the summer and I don't want to leave anyone out. Lodging: We originally had planned to use the Ramada Inn for our lodging but it recently burned down. Our new hotel of choice is the Clarion. We receive a discount rate of $69.00/night. (Just let them know that you are with the LSA). I would suggest making reservations sooner rather than latter as there is some other event that weekend which has nothing to do with Linguistics. The toll free number for the Clarion is: 877-533-1200. It is located at 3600 Dunkel Dr., Lansing, MI. (East Lansing is right across the street). It is close to the university, a little under a mile from the student center. (I'm not sure where we will be meeting yet). Alternative lodging can be found on campus at the Kellogg center, although prices range from $69.00 - $89.00. There are also several other places on campus but the Clarion is the cheapest lodging close by. If you are interested in other options, please let me know. Parasession: The conference dates will be Friday and Saturday August 8th & 9th. There will be an informal syntax parasession on August 7th. The topic we had previously discussed is "junction/juncture". Which means it is pretty wide open. Nothing formal need be done for this although I would like to know who is interested in attending and/or presenting so that we can arrange for a space. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you all at the conference. Best wishes, John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: Ogalala2 at aol.com [mailto:Ogalala2 at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: 2003 SACLC Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 29 20:49:55 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:49:55 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: I have received the appended request from one of the curators for the U.S. Senate to translate an inscription he believes to be in the Kaw language. It includes a photograph of the inscription, which is on a chair presented to Charles Curtis when he was Vice President of the United States from 1929-1933. Curtis was part Kaw. I hope the Colorado listserver permits photo attachments. If it doesn't come through and you'd like a copy, let me know. I thought I'd give all of you a crack at it. I'll be trying to translate it as well. It's pretty clearly written in a Dhegiha dialect. It may be Kaw, but written down by someone using the Osage dictionary as a source (since there was no Kaw dictionary, Osage would be the closest source of lexicon in published form). It looks as though it has "TH" where Kaw would have [y] (both now and in the 1800's). You'll want to look at the photo rather than the curator's rendering of it, as someone has scratched in a small, raised "n" above a vowel to indicate nasalization. It's easily visible near the top. In other instances, a syllable-final is written for nasalization. Whoever wrote it pretty clearly had access to La Flesche's Osage Dictionary, as they write "real" as /xtsi/. Any ideas appreciated. Naturally, I'll share credit where credit is due when I send in my rendering. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Doerner, Rich (Secretary) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:15 AM To: Rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Translation Dear Mr. Robert Rankin: Ms. Virginia Wulfkuhle, Public Archeologist at Kansas, recommended that I write to you. I am the Museum Specialist in the Office of Senate Curator conducting research on a chair presented to Vice President Charles Curtis. I am interested in translating the following Native American Indian (Kaw ?) word(s) that appear on a circular medallion in the center of the backrest on the carved walnut chair. The letters may be out of order. I have enclosed a digital image of the medallion for your translation.. KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN In addition to the above, the chair is also inscribed "From the Original Curtis Boys and Matthew Quay Glaser". I am reading numerous books on Curtis, reviewing New York Times articles, and conducting research at the Library of Congress to learn more about them. THANK YOU in advance for any help you may be able to provide. Richard Doerner Museum Specialist Office of the Senate Curator Room S-411, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510-7102 <> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jpg chair.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 123582 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jul 29 23:07:10 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:07:10 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D165B64@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: o'kas^e iNke' xtsi mathiN' is clearly: go forth supremely untroubled All looks like Osage except the n in mani (OS maN thiN') I'll have to work a little on ko'on that iha. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:50 PM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. I have received the appended request from one of the curators for the U.S. Senate to translate an inscription he believes to be in the Kaw language. It includes a photograph of the inscription, which is on a chair presented to Charles Curtis when he was Vice President of the United States from 1929-1933. Curtis was part Kaw. I hope the Colorado listserver permits photo attachments. If it doesn't come through and you'd like a copy, let me know. I thought I'd give all of you a crack at it. I'll be trying to translate it as well. It's pretty clearly written in a Dhegiha dialect. It may be Kaw, but written down by someone using the Osage dictionary as a source (since there was no Kaw dictionary, Osage would be the closest source of lexicon in published form). It looks as though it has "TH" where Kaw would have [y] (both now and in the 1800's). You'll want to look at the photo rather than the curator's rendering of it, as someone has scratched in a small, raised "n" above a vowel to indicate nasalization. It's easily visible near the top. In other instances, a syllable-final is written for nasalization. Whoever wrote it pretty clearly had access to La Flesche's Osage Dictionary, as they write "real" as /xtsi/. Any ideas appreciated. Naturally, I'll share credit where credit is due when I send in my rendering. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Doerner, Rich (Secretary) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:15 AM To: Rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Translation Dear Mr. Robert Rankin: Ms. Virginia Wulfkuhle, Public Archeologist at Kansas, recommended that I write to you. I am the Museum Specialist in the Office of Senate Curator conducting research on a chair presented to Vice President Charles Curtis. I am interested in translating the following Native American Indian (Kaw ?) word(s) that appear on a circular medallion in the center of the backrest on the carved walnut chair. The letters may be out of order. I have enclosed a digital image of the medallion for your translation.. KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN In addition to the above, the chair is also inscribed "From the Original Curtis Boys and Matthew Quay Glaser". I am reading numerous books on Curtis, reviewing New York Times articles, and conducting research at the Library of Congress to learn more about them. THANK YOU in advance for any help you may be able to provide. Richard Doerner Museum Specialist Office of the Senate Curator Room S-411, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510-7102 <> From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jul 29 23:31:04 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:31:04 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: Using the La Flesche dictionary, I'd parse it as follows: KO-THA = Os. ko'dha = friend (cf. L. khola') U-CA-SHE = Os. u'gashe = ailment, not well THI(n)-CE = Os. dhiN'ge = none (OP same) u'gashe dhiNge = well, healthy, no interruption to the enjoyment of good health XTSI = Os. xtsi = verily, very (intensifying particle, cf. OP =xti) MO-NI = Os. moNni = you walk (OP same) KO(n)-ON-THA = Os., OP oNgoN'dha = we want (The oN-, 'we', affixed pronoun appears internally here, rather than in front. Is this normal for Kaw?) I = OP =i, a pluralizer for the preceding 'we' in this case. HA = OP =ha, an emphatic or declarative particle. Translation: Friend, we hope that you walk in very good health. Thanks for sharing! Now I'll check to see what Carolyn has to say! Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 29 23:47:37 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:47:37 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: That's great, Carolyn! You're ahead of me on this by a long way. I was thinking that "ko'on tha-" might be 'want, wish' with a space inserted (for all I know La Flesche may write it with the space sometimes -- since it's clearly two morphemes. "Mani" for 'walk' is the proper form in Quapaw, and I suspect that between the two nasal vowels, the "th" can optionally be an "n" in other dialects too. But Kaw definitely has a [y] here. Is there a Curtis family among the Osages by any chance? Bob -----Original Message----- From: Carolyn Quintero [mailto:cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:07 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. o'kas^e iNke' xtsi mathiN' is clearly: go forth supremely untroubled All looks like Osage except the n in mani (OS maN thiN') I'll have to work a little on ko'on that iha. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:50 PM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. I have received the appended request from one of the curators for the U.S. Senate to translate an inscription he believes to be in the Kaw language. It includes a photograph of the inscription, which is on a chair presented to Charles Curtis when he was Vice President of the United States from 1929-1933. Curtis was part Kaw. I hope the Colorado listserver permits photo attachments. If it doesn't come through and you'd like a copy, let me know. I thought I'd give all of you a crack at it. I'll be trying to translate it as well. It's pretty clearly written in a Dhegiha dialect. It may be Kaw, but written down by someone using the Osage dictionary as a source (since there was no Kaw dictionary, Osage would be the closest source of lexicon in published form). It looks as though it has "TH" where Kaw would have [y] (both now and in the 1800's). You'll want to look at the photo rather than the curator's rendering of it, as someone has scratched in a small, raised "n" above a vowel to indicate nasalization. It's easily visible near the top. In other instances, a syllable-final is written for nasalization. Whoever wrote it pretty clearly had access to La Flesche's Osage Dictionary, as they write "real" as /xtsi/. Any ideas appreciated. Naturally, I'll share credit where credit is due when I send in my rendering. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Doerner, Rich (Secretary) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:15 AM To: Rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Translation Dear Mr. Robert Rankin: Ms. Virginia Wulfkuhle, Public Archeologist at Kansas, recommended that I write to you. I am the Museum Specialist in the Office of Senate Curator conducting research on a chair presented to Vice President Charles Curtis. I am interested in translating the following Native American Indian (Kaw ?) word(s) that appear on a circular medallion in the center of the backrest on the carved walnut chair. The letters may be out of order. I have enclosed a digital image of the medallion for your translation.. KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN In addition to the above, the chair is also inscribed "From the Original Curtis Boys and Matthew Quay Glaser". I am reading numerous books on Curtis, reviewing New York Times articles, and conducting research at the Library of Congress to learn more about them. THANK YOU in advance for any help you may be able to provide. Richard Doerner Museum Specialist Office of the Senate Curator Room S-411, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510-7102 <> From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 29 23:55:12 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:55:12 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: Hey, this is great! I'm not going to have to do any work at all!! I think Rory's got most of the rest of it. "moni", then, is for /maN-h-niN/, with the -h- the infixed second person allomorph. It's certainly there in Kaw. I would guess it would be there in Osage as well. That explains why the /n/ instead of "th" for edh. /n/ always occurs with the 2nd person rather than edh. I want to look at the iha part a little more closely, but Rory and Carolyn together have broken the code. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:31 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Using the La Flesche dictionary, I'd parse it as follows: KO-THA = Os. ko'dha = friend (cf. L. khola') U-CA-SHE = Os. u'gashe = ailment, not well THI(n)-CE = Os. dhiN'ge = none (OP same) u'gashe dhiNge = well, healthy, no interruption to the enjoyment of good health XTSI = Os. xtsi = verily, very (intensifying particle, cf. OP =xti) MO-NI = Os. moNni = you walk (OP same) KO(n)-ON-THA = Os., OP oNgoN'dha = we want (The oN-, 'we', affixed pronoun appears internally here, rather than in front. Is this normal for Kaw?) I = OP =i, a pluralizer for the preceding 'we' in this case. HA = OP =ha, an emphatic or declarative particle. Translation: Friend, we hope that you walk in very good health. Thanks for sharing! Now I'll check to see what Carolyn has to say! Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jul 29 23:58:01 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:58:01 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: > o'kas^e iNke' xtsi mathiN' is clearly: > go forth supremely untroubled > > All looks like Osage except the n in mani (OS maN thiN') > > I'll have to work a little on ko'on that iha. > Carolyn Wow! That is a bit different from the forms in the Osage Dictionary! Come to think of it, the whole thing does look suspiciously like an eclectic mixture of Osage and OP, with perhaps something else thrown in as well. Also, the time the chair was given to Curtis coincides very closely with the time the dictionary was published. I wonder if Francis La Flesche was not involved in redacting that inscription? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 01:11:27 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:11:27 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: > Also, the time the chair was given to Curtis coincides very closely with the time the dictionary was published. I wonder if Francis La Flesche was not involved in redacting that inscription? Good thought. I wonder. It never bothered La Flesche to mix languages (OS and OP) in the OS dictionary. I don't suppose it would have bothered him to give the Osage for an inscription he was asked to provide in Kaw. That's certainly worth pursuing. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 03:03:40 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:03:40 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: >> Also, the time the chair >> was given to Curtis coincides very closely with the time the >> dictionary was published. I wonder if Francis La Flesche >> was not involved in redacting that inscription? > Good thought. I wonder. It never bothered La Flesche to mix languages (OS > and OP) in the OS dictionary. I don't suppose it would have bothered him to > give the Osage for an inscription he was asked to provide in Kaw. That's > certainly worth pursuing. > > Bob So we have an Omaha linguist who publishes an Osage dictionary under a U.S. Vice President who is part Kaw. And wasn't there an oil boom that made the Osages notably wealthy around this time? It makes me think there may have been a pan-Dhegihan movement in this period. These languages are close enough to be arguably dialects of each other. Suppose La Flesche was actually vacillating between writing a dictionary of Osage (were the Osages supporting his work?) and writing a general Dhegihan dictionary. This might be like us trying to write a dictionary of "Southern". We would get the words and expressions that were special to our subject language, as well as some of the phonology, but we would probably keep our standard English spelling for most of the common words, even though the pronunciation was different. If La Flesche was approaching Osage, and perhaps Kaw, in this way, from a standard Dhegihan orthography based on Omaha, it might explain some of his apparent tendency to mix languages. In this case, he should have tended to keep the Omaha version of spelling where Omaha had the full phoneme. Thus, Os. or Kaw /o/ would come out as OP /u/, and Os. /-/ and Kaw /y/ would come out as OP /dh/. But if the other language seemed to throw in an extra phoneme, as with the affricativization of dental stops, this would be prominent enough to record; thus Os. /xtsi/ rather than OP /xti/. Words and expressions, however, should always be in the target language. Thus, /kodha/ and /okas^e/, which to my knowledge don't exist in OP, would prove that the Osage (or Kaw?) dialect was intended. That would leave us with the /i=ha/ ending, which appears to be pure OP, either contradicting this rule, or else acceptable at that time in Osage or Kaw. Does Kaw have the words /koya/ and /okas^e/? And does it affricatize dental stops before [i], e.g. /xtsi/ rather than /xti/, as in Osage? And finally, how does it construct "we want", or "we hope"? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 06:20:09 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:20:09 -0600 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D165B64@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: OK, having read ahead ... I actually make it On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN Top: KO-THA U-GA-SHE THI^N-GE XTSI MO-NI Kkudha ugas^e dhiNge= xc^i maNniN Friend, ailment lacking very (you?) go "Go (or 'you went') in health." Bottom: KO^NON-THA IHA KkaN=aNdha=i=ha He threatened (charged) me. As Bob points out, the raised n's are missed in Doerner's transciption. I think all the C's are actually G's, too, from what I can make of the photo. He accidentally repeats the NI of the top part as IN in teh bottom part, too. Everybody else got the first one before I checked my mail this evening, but I think I have the last one. See LaFlesche 1933:89b k.oN-tha 'to attack, to charge upon an enemy, to raid, to threaten, to menace'. LaFlesche gives the active inflection, and shows that both stems kkaN and dha are inflected, e.g., akkaN=bdha 'I threatened him'. I assume that kkaN=aNdha is the first person patient form, though I don't think there's a parallel formation with gaN=dha 'to wish' (also with both stems inflected). I think there's a very good chance that the message was composed by LaFlesche, though I don't know what connection he had with Curtis, and I don't know what events in the life of Curtis (presumably) or circumstances between Curtis and (presumably) LaFlesche the message may refer to. It seems that somebody threatened Curtis (presumably) and that the presenter wishes him well. As far as the language, it is essentially Omaha-Ponca once you see the G's instead of C's. The orthography isn't quite the usual one for LaFlesche, assuming it's him, but he wasn't always consistant on raised n vs. n-in-line (KO^N-ON-THA), and I suspect that xtsi for OP xti ~ xc^i isn't unreasonable for someone who's recently been working on Osage. The use of th for *dh instead of y or d shows it's not Kaw or Quapaw, though there's no evidence that LaFlesche in particular worked with either language (though he does lists some names from both in The Omaha Tribe). The use of =i=ha PROXIMATE-DECLARATIVE (male) (in archaic form) pretty well shows it's Omaha-Ponca. The -xtsi is odd, but not impossible. He is using o in ko-tha (kkudha) 'friend', but he's back to u- in ugashe (ugas^e). Mo-ni could represent either maNdhiN or maNniN, which in OP terms would be the third person (or imperative, though there's no imperative particle) in the case of maNdhiN, or it would be the second person maNniN < maNhniN < maNs^niN. He always wrote aN (~ oN) as oN, except when he wrote uN (u apparently schwa) occasionally. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 06:55:25 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:55:25 -0600 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > So we have an Omaha linguist who publishes an Osage dictionary > under a U.S. Vice President who is part Kaw. And wasn't there > an oil boom that made the Osages notably wealthy around this time? Yes, though I think it began well before 1929. LaFlesche did his fieldwork 1910-1923. > It makes me think there may have been a pan-Dhegihan movement > in this period. That might be going a bit far. It would be interesting to know how much each of the groups knew of the others at which periods, however. > These languages are close enough to be arguably dialects of each > other. They different more among themselves than Dakotan, I think, though I don't know if anyone's set out to compare them consistantly (other than phonologically). There are some rather major, but superficial differences in the inflection of dh-stems, and there are differences in the sets of articles and their inflectional patterns. The subordinating conjunctions and sentence final and initial particles seem to differ strongly from one dialect to another. The dative is differently formed in OP vs. Os/Ks. > Suppose La Flesche was actually vacillating between writing a > dictionary of Osage (were the Osages supporting his work?) and writing > a general Dhegihan dictionary. I have the impression he vacillated between writing a dictionary of OSage and a dictionary of Omaha-Ponca. There are persistant reports in the Omaha references that he was working on an Omaha dictionary, and I assume these refer to the Osage Dictionary. He clearly felt able to work with both languages on similar terms, though a fiar amount of special knowledge is needed to map even a "purified" version of his vision of Osage to Omaha and vice versa. Bu purified I mean with plural/proximate marking and dh-stem inflections corrected, since he does those correctly in textual contexts, if not (mostly) in the dictionary. > This might be like us trying to write a dictionary of "Southern". We > would get the words and expressions that were special to our subject > language, as well as some of the phonology, but we would probably keep > our standard English spelling for most of the common words, even > though the pronunciation was different. People attempt this sort of thing all the time, of coruse, though usually they produce texts rather than dictionaries. LaFlesche definitely has a standardizing orthography for Omaha and Osage, and yet he does differ in his usage for the two languages, even if we eliminate some vacilation on forms and take note of the different periods in his usage. In regard to the sample at hand, the Osage influence is limited to xtsi for xc^i ~ xti and kotha for kkudha. However, everything else here is within the range of his Osage spelling, and even the two probably Omaha inflected and suffixed verb forms show no more Omaha influence than his Osage dictionary. So, I think it is safe to think that he had an idea that the two languages were essentially similar and had a tendency to focus on pronunciation shibboleths like ts or ksh or d /t/ for R rather than on (for us) equally obvious morphological differences. > In this case, he should have tended to keep the Omaha version of > spelling where Omaha had the full phoneme. Thus, Os. or Kaw /o/ > would come out as OP /u/, and Os. /-/ and Kaw /y/ would come out > as OP /dh/. Well, here Osage has the fuller set of distinctions and should carry the day. Unfortunately, he generally writes u and i where Osage has /o/ and /u/ vs. /i/. He does sometimes write o for /o/, but not nearly as often as /u/, and he does sometimes write iu for /u/, but not as often as /i/. So he had only a marginal appreciation of the differences in the vowel systems. He writes th, gth, bth, xth as in Omaha-Ponca where Osage has dh, l ~ dl ~ gl, br, l ~ hl. I suspect the usage in his day was in the more conservative range, but here he goes with the Omaha versions - the underlying forms in essence, while for pH and kH he writes p ~ psh and k ~ ksh (sometimes kch). In essence he tends to prefer to overdifferentiate and phoneticize, except with s ~ z (both c-cedilla) and x ~ gh (both x), and (mostly) with the vowels, where he takes the OP merging approach for the most part. JEK From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 12:59:20 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:59:20 -0500 Subject: a wish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I believe that rather than the "charge" interpretation based on LF 'menace, charge against', another reading is possible. In instances where a doubly inflecting verb such as 'menace' is shown to be, if there is only one subject pronominal, it will be the left one, not the right one. And if there is only one object pronominal in such a verb, it will be the left one. Therefore this internal ON as either A1p or P1s does not seem at all likely. What about the KO(n) being LF's 'to wish or to desire'? This usage was not present in the Osage I collected but it appears LF32:88. We could assume that it is also a noun 'a wish'. If i, like (a)pi in OS, will cause the final e of *the* to be a, then we get the ON-THA. Does that happen? Then that leaves us with ON-THA-IHA, and the only thing I can make of this is either a) oN'the 'toss out, discard' (giving: a wish we/he threw away?) or b) aNthe 'he/they made me' with *the* as the causative and aN '1s patient', giving 'they made me wish'??? In Modern Osage these two alternatives would be(without the *ha* which is not used at least nowadays) as follows: a') oN'thape or b') aN'thape I don't believe b) could be construed as 'they made me the wish' because that would involve a different 'make', probably *kaaghe*. Carolyn ' -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:20 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Re: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. OK, having read ahead ... I actually make it On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN Top: KO-THA U-GA-SHE THI^N-GE XTSI MO-NI Kkudha ugas^e dhiNge= xc^i maNniN Friend, ailment lacking very (you?) go "Go (or 'you went') in health." Bottom: KO^NON-THA IHA KkaN=aNdha=i=ha He threatened (charged) me. As Bob points out, the raised n's are missed in Doerner's transciption. I think all the C's are actually G's, too, from what I can make of the photo. He accidentally repeats the NI of the top part as IN in teh bottom part, too. Everybody else got the first one before I checked my mail this evening, but I think I have the last one. See LaFlesche 1933:89b k.oN-tha 'to attack, to charge upon an enemy, to raid, to threaten, to menace'. LaFlesche gives the active inflection, and shows that both stems kkaN and dha are inflected, e.g., akkaN=bdha 'I threatened him'. I assume that kkaN=aNdha is the first person patient form, though I don't think there's a parallel formation with gaN=dha 'to wish' (also with both stems inflected). I think there's a very good chance that the message was composed by LaFlesche, though I don't know what connection he had with Curtis, and I don't know what events in the life of Curtis (presumably) or circumstances between Curtis and (presumably) LaFlesche the message may refer to. It seems that somebody threatened Curtis (presumably) and that the presenter wishes him well. As far as the language, it is essentially Omaha-Ponca once you see the G's instead of C's. The orthography isn't quite the usual one for LaFlesche, assuming it's him, but he wasn't always consistant on raised n vs. n-in-line (KO^N-ON-THA), and I suspect that xtsi for OP xti ~ xc^i isn't unreasonable for someone who's recently been working on Osage. The use of th for *dh instead of y or d shows it's not Kaw or Quapaw, though there's no evidence that LaFlesche in particular worked with either language (though he does lists some names from both in The Omaha Tribe). The use of =i=ha PROXIMATE-DECLARATIVE (male) (in archaic form) pretty well shows it's Omaha-Ponca. The -xtsi is odd, but not impossible. He is using o in ko-tha (kkudha) 'friend', but he's back to u- in ugashe (ugas^e). Mo-ni could represent either maNdhiN or maNniN, which in OP terms would be the third person (or imperative, though there's no imperative particle) in the case of maNdhiN, or it would be the second person maNniN < maNhniN < maNs^niN. He always wrote aN (~ oN) as oN, except when he wrote uN (u apparently schwa) occasionally. JEK From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jul 30 13:08:52 2003 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:08:52 -0500 Subject: Chair Message-ID: Hi gang: Part of the inscription must be Curtis's Indian name. I know if I was presenting a gift like a chair i would put his Indian name on it. LouieG From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 15:01:07 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:01:07 -0600 Subject: Chair In-Reply-To: <002101c3569b$b94b5f30$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Louis Garcia wrote: > Part of the inscription must be Curtis's Indian name. I know if I was > presenting a gift like a chair i would put his Indian name on it. That's an excellent suggestion, though in names =i is usually in the older form =bi. The stock example I remember is Is^kada=bi 'Juggler' (expert at sleight of hand, e.g., the handgame and its earlier predecessors) > s^kade 'to play', cf. Dakotan s^kata. Also, the name wouldn't get the declarative. Otherwise, 'charger' or 'threatener' would be an excellent name. In Dakotan, too, I think, right? I suppose it might be a verbal rendition of the sense of his name. Dhegiha cultures - or Omaha culture, anyway - are somewhat shy about sharing names, though I think it's a matter of customary usages rather than a question of names being secret. My understanding is that it's not (or it wasn't) considered necessary to tell one's name to someone in order to deal with them. I'm always flattered if someone tells me their name, and I don't generally ask. === Something I neglected to mention is that I'm pretty sure that whoever composed the message was a native speaker, at least of some Siouan language. They've got the syntax down right. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 15:04:38 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:04:38 -0600 Subject: a wish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > I believe that rather than the "charge" interpretation based on LF 'menace, > charge against', another reading is possible. In instances where a doubly > inflecting verb such as 'menace' is shown to be, if there is only one > subject pronominal, it will be the left one, not the right one. And if there > is only one object pronominal in such a verb, it will be the left one. > Therefore this internal ON as either A1p or P1s does not seem at all likely. As far as I know this principle is correct with respect to agent pronominals in verbs like ...aN=...dha 'to discard' and ...gaN=...dha 'to want'. That is, the inclusive is aNgaNdha, though as Bob has observed in the past, it might be difficult to know if it were aNgaN=aNdha, especially if we're a bit slack about recognizing long vowels. I'll look into this further. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 15:49:47 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:49:47 -0500 Subject: Chair Message-ID: This is an interesting suggestion. It would have to be the bottom line of the inscription, as I think we've nailed the top line. If Curtis had an Indian name (his Kaw blood quantum was pretty small), then "Charger" or something like that could easily be it. If this is not his name, then I'm a little unhappy with the "charge, menace" translation. We shouldn't forget that, where you have a G in Omaha and Ponca, you have a K in Osage. I've been operating under the assumption that the two could be mixed orthographically if someone conversant with Omaha-Ponca were given an Osage utterance and asked to write it. it's possible that the Curtis family approached someone to provide a proper inscription for the chair and were directed to Francis Laflesche. The Kaw for 'we want it' is /oNgoNyabe/. I'd have to find it in the recordings to determine whether the second /oN/ is long or short, but the inclusive/plural pronominal is definitely prefixed at least. So I'm a little uneasy with a 'threatened' translation unless it can be shown to relate to something specific in the history of Curtis's vice presidency or unless we can take it as a proper name. I wonder if it could possibly mean 'charge' in the sense of 'commission'? And I wonder if the apostrophe between the vowels could be the glottal articulation that sometimes "breaks" long vowels with falling pitch? All in all, I think you guys are doing a terrific job. We'll have quite a bit to tell this researcher. I don't know if he is an employee of the U.S. Senate or someone doing historical research under their auspices. Bob >Hi gang: Part of the inscription must be Curtis's Indian name. I know if I was presenting a gift like a chair i would put his Indian name on it. LouieG From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 16:07:43 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:07:43 -0600 Subject: Chair In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164D04@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > If Curtis had an Indian name (his Kaw blood quantum was pretty small), then > "Charger" or something like that could easily be it. If this is not his > name, then I'm a little unhappy with the "charge, menace" translation. As a name a problem is having oN -me' embedded in it. I suppose koN on tha i ha might possibly be 'He is a Kaw', though LaFlesche doesn't usually write th for s. He does write c-cedilla "pronounced like th in [thin?]" or something like that. i don't recall his actual example. Here it would be voiced. OP would have kkaNze, or in the third person kkaNza=i. The author does contrast k (=kk in 'friend') and g. He isn't writing k for the simple stop. JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 17:10:13 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:10:13 -0500 Subject: a wish? Message-ID: I'd agree with Carolyn on this. I did see, and briefly considered, the "attack" interpretation of KO(n)ONTHA, but the translation "Friend, you walk in very good health. He attacked me." seems a little schizophrenic for a chair dedicated to a Vice President (unless we go with Louis' suggestion that this last clause might be Curtis' Indian name). In OP at least, there seems to be a gradient series of "desire" expressions, all based on the two elements *koN, "wish", and *dha or *edha, meaning "think". (I believe John and maybe Bob had a good historical linguistic discussion of the "think" term a few months ago; I'm winging it from memory here, and hope they will correct me if I'm in error.) In the I-form, the series comes out as follows: kkoN'bdha = kkoN bdha = I want (in a somewhat demanding or intentional way) kkoNbdhe'goN = kkoN bdha-e'goN = I would like (in a softened, undemanding way) kkoN ebdhe'goN = kkoN e bdha-e'goN = I wish (in a magical or irrealis sort of way; e.g. that this blood clot would become a boy) The /e'goN/ in the latter two expressions is an adverb meaning 'sorta', as in "I sorta think". This has become standard in OP, but is not originally an essential part of it. The /e/ in the last expression may be the generic demonstrative "that", as in: "X, that I think". For the first form, "want", the full subject paradigm is: goN'dha = s/he wants kkoN'bdha = I want s^koN'hna = you want oNgoN'dha = we want Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. I think that a couple of processes may be going on here. Historically, we are getting a merging of two words into one: "wish-think" => "want". The more completely merged form tends to take on a somewhat forceful tone of demand, which is not wanted in all contexts. One way out is to soften it by adding a "sorta" adverb at the end: "I sorta want it" would mean "I would like to have it", not "I demand to have it". The other is to carefully preserve the distinction between the original two roots: "(I) wish, I think" would really mean "I wish", keeping clear that there is no real-world expectation of the wish being fulfilled. If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). If this hypothesis is valid, then the semantic difference between /oNgoN'dha/ and /goN' oNdha/ would be: Friend, we want you to walk in good health (and darned well expect it of you!) vs. Friend, we wish for you to walk in good health (but admittedly have no influence over the matter.) Carolyn wrote: > If i, like (a)pi in OS, will cause the final e of *the* to be a, then we get > the ON-THA. Does that happen? Yes, =i causes a-grade ablaut. So if the root is in fact /dhe/, then we would get oNdha=i, as you suggest. And if the root is /dha/, as I propose above, then we get the same thing. Rory "Carolyn Quintero" et> cc: Sent by: Subject: a wish? owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/30/2003 07:59 AM Please respond to siouan I believe that rather than the "charge" interpretation based on LF 'menace, charge against', another reading is possible. In instances where a doubly inflecting verb such as 'menace' is shown to be, if there is only one subject pronominal, it will be the left one, not the right one. And if there is only one object pronominal in such a verb, it will be the left one. Therefore this internal ON as either A1p or P1s does not seem at all likely. What about the KO(n) being LF's 'to wish or to desire'? This usage was not present in the Osage I collected but it appears LF32:88. We could assume that it is also a noun 'a wish'. If i, like (a)pi in OS, will cause the final e of *the* to be a, then we get the ON-THA. Does that happen? Then that leaves us with ON-THA-IHA, and the only thing I can make of this is either a) oN'the 'toss out, discard' (giving: a wish we/he threw away?) or b) aNthe 'he/they made me' with *the* as the causative and aN '1s patient', giving 'they made me wish'??? In Modern Osage these two alternatives would be(without the *ha* which is not used at least nowadays) as follows: a') oN'thape or b') aN'thape I don't believe b) could be construed as 'they made me the wish' because that would involve a different 'make', probably *kaaghe*. Carolyn ' -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:20 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Re: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. OK, having read ahead ... I actually make it On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN Top: KO-THA U-GA-SHE THI^N-GE XTSI MO-NI Kkudha ugas^e dhiNge= xc^i maNniN Friend, ailment lacking very (you?) go "Go (or 'you went') in health." Bottom: KO^NON-THA IHA KkaN=aNdha=i=ha He threatened (charged) me. As Bob points out, the raised n's are missed in Doerner's transciption. I think all the C's are actually G's, too, from what I can make of the photo. He accidentally repeats the NI of the top part as IN in teh bottom part, too. Everybody else got the first one before I checked my mail this evening, but I think I have the last one. See LaFlesche 1933:89b k.oN-tha 'to attack, to charge upon an enemy, to raid, to threaten, to menace'. LaFlesche gives the active inflection, and shows that both stems kkaN and dha are inflected, e.g., akkaN=bdha 'I threatened him'. I assume that kkaN=aNdha is the first person patient form, though I don't think there's a parallel formation with gaN=dha 'to wish' (also with both stems inflected). I think there's a very good chance that the message was composed by LaFlesche, though I don't know what connection he had with Curtis, and I don't know what events in the life of Curtis (presumably) or circumstances between Curtis and (presumably) LaFlesche the message may refer to. It seems that somebody threatened Curtis (presumably) and that the presenter wishes him well. As far as the language, it is essentially Omaha-Ponca once you see the G's instead of C's. The orthography isn't quite the usual one for LaFlesche, assuming it's him, but he wasn't always consistant on raised n vs. n-in-line (KO^N-ON-THA), and I suspect that xtsi for OP xti ~ xc^i isn't unreasonable for someone who's recently been working on Osage. The use of th for *dh instead of y or d shows it's not Kaw or Quapaw, though there's no evidence that LaFlesche in particular worked with either language (though he does lists some names from both in The Omaha Tribe). The use of =i=ha PROXIMATE-DECLARATIVE (male) (in archaic form) pretty well shows it's Omaha-Ponca. The -xtsi is odd, but not impossible. He is using o in ko-tha (kkudha) 'friend', but he's back to u- in ugashe (ugas^e). Mo-ni could represent either maNdhiN or maNniN, which in OP terms would be the third person (or imperative, though there's no imperative particle) in the case of maNdhiN, or it would be the second person maNniN < maNhniN < maNs^niN. He always wrote aN (~ oN) as oN, except when he wrote uN (u apparently schwa) occasionally. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 17:45:10 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:45:10 -0600 Subject: a wish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'd agree with Carolyn on this. I did see, and briefly considered, > the "attack" interpretation of KO(n)ONTHA, but the translation > "Friend, you walk in very good health. He attacked me." seems a little > schizophrenic for a chair dedicated to a Vice President (unless we go > with Louis' suggestion that this last clause might be Curtis' Indian > name). I interpreted it as 'He threatened me' (but nevertheless) 'You should go in health'. > Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it > appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would > like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last > form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is > exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person. There doesn't seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts. Cognates of this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g, not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that sound). > If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form > should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. > But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", > then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us > /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that - the morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 19:05:15 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:05:15 -0500 Subject: a wish? Message-ID: >> Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it >> appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would >> like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last >> form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is >> exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. > I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person. There doesn't > seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts. Cognates of > this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g, > not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that > sound). I agree. That's why I decided to use /koN/ rather than /kkoN/ above. In OP, *koN should come out /goN/, and in Os. it should be /koN/. The inscription seems to be some mix of OP and Os. orthography, at least, and I think the Os. version got used here. In the La Flesche dictionary of Osage, 'g' is used for the unmarked "want" term "goN'tha", while a dotted 'k' is used for the I-form "koNbtha", as well as the word "koN", "to wish or to desire", the word "koN", "root" or "vein" (which is /kkoN/ in OP), and the word "koN'tha", "attack/charge/raid/ threaten". I don't think we can rely on either La Flesche or the redactor of the chair inscription to consistently distinguish *k from *hk. >> If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form >> should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. >> But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", >> then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us >> /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). > I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that - the > morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis. What do you find implausible about it? We have two roots, *koN, meaning "wish" and *(e)dha (?) meaning "think". These are combined as *koN'dha to form the common word "want". Both roots are inflected with the I and you affixed pronouns. The 'we' affixed pronoun attaches only to the front, at least where "want" is the meaning. However, it must have attached to *(e)dha at least historically, when the latter was an independent verb. Wouldn't the result have been something like *oNdha? In OP, we have the common word /goN'dha/, meaning "want", but we also have a couple of other related terms, at least in the first person singular, and at least in the 19th century, that mean something a little different. One of these is /kkoN' ebdhe'goN/, "I wish I think", meaning "I wish". Do we have an attested we-form of this? If not, how would you construct it? One other question: Are the words /kudha/, "friend", and /ugas^e/, "ailment", attested for OP? Perhaps they are in the Dorsey dictionary; they are not in Stabler and Swetland, and I don't remember ever running across them in Dorsey, or hearing them from our speakers. Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 19:48:43 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:48:43 -0500 Subject: Our wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably, e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe. Then 1p aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i. So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the wish'. Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately: "Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!" ( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. ) Peacefully, Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:05 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: a wish? >> Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it >> appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would >> like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last >> form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is >> exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. > I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person. There doesn't > seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts. Cognates of > this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g, > not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that > sound). I agree. That's why I decided to use /koN/ rather than /kkoN/ above. In OP, *koN should come out /goN/, and in Os. it should be /koN/. The inscription seems to be some mix of OP and Os. orthography, at least, and I think the Os. version got used here. In the La Flesche dictionary of Osage, 'g' is used for the unmarked "want" term "goN'tha", while a dotted 'k' is used for the I-form "koNbtha", as well as the word "koN", "to wish or to desire", the word "koN", "root" or "vein" (which is /kkoN/ in OP), and the word "koN'tha", "attack/charge/raid/ threaten". I don't think we can rely on either La Flesche or the redactor of the chair inscription to consistently distinguish *k from *hk. >> If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form >> should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. >> But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", >> then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us >> /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). > I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that - the > morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis. What do you find implausible about it? We have two roots, *koN, meaning "wish" and *(e)dha (?) meaning "think". These are combined as *koN'dha to form the common word "want". Both roots are inflected with the I and you affixed pronouns. The 'we' affixed pronoun attaches only to the front, at least where "want" is the meaning. However, it must have attached to *(e)dha at least historically, when the latter was an independent verb. Wouldn't the result have been something like *oNdha? In OP, we have the common word /goN'dha/, meaning "want", but we also have a couple of other related terms, at least in the first person singular, and at least in the 19th century, that mean something a little different. One of these is /kkoN' ebdhe'goN/, "I wish I think", meaning "I wish". Do we have an attested we-form of this? If not, how would you construct it? One other question: Are the words /kudha/, "friend", and /ugas^e/, "ailment", attested for OP? Perhaps they are in the Dorsey dictionary; they are not in Stabler and Swetland, and I don't remember ever running across them in Dorsey, or hearing them from our speakers. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 20:31:15 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:31:15 -0500 Subject: Curtis biography Message-ID: Acting on Louis Garcia's idea, I did a little internet research on Curtis in order to check out his Kaw background. I didn't locate his Indian name, but his early childhood makes it pretty clear that he probably had one. As you can see from the following, lifted from an article in the Topeka Capital Journal, he lived on the reservation in Kansas and embraced their way of life. There supposedly more at vpcharlescurtis.net. I'll look it over. Bob *************************************************** >>From the Cap Journal, March 2003: "His father was Oren Curtis, who was also known as Captain Jack, and his mother was Ellen Pappan. Curtis gets his Indian heritage from his mother, who was part Kansa, Osage and Potawatomi Indian and part French. Charles Curtis, who was nicknamed Charley, was baptized at the Catholic church in St. Marys, according to the Web site. Oren Curtis and Ellen Pappan later had a daughter, Elizabeth. Oren Curtis had a daughter with another woman, Charles Curtis' half-sister Dolly. Ellen Pappan is the great-great-granddaughter of Osage Chief Powhuska. Powhuska's daughter married White Plume, an Osage who was appointed chief of the Kansa Indians. White Plume's daughter, Wy-He-See, married Louis Gonville, and they had a daughter Julie. Julie Gonville married Louis Pappan, the owner of Pappan's Ferry. They were Ellen's parents. As a boy, Charles Curtis learned how to ride ponies under the watchful eye of his mother. Andrews said by the time Curtis was 3, he could ride without any help. Also, when he was 3, Ellen Pappan died of black fever. Oren Curtis left his family to fight in the Civil War, so Charles and Elizabeth went to live with Oren's parents, William and Permelia Curtis, in Eugene, the original name for North Topeka. But Curtis didn't stay with his grandparents very long. He returned to the home of his mother's parents, Louis Pappan and Julie Gonville, on the Kansa reservation near Council Grove, where he lived from 1866 to 1869. In Ewy's paper, Curtis is quoted as saying, "Until I was 8 I lived there, happy and contented, playing, riding horses and learning very little." Although he took classes at a mission school, Curtis preferred riding and playing to school work. "As a boy, Curtis always thought of himself as an Indian," Ewy wrote. Curtis returned to Topeka under "heroic circumstances," Ewy wrote. Cheyenne had raided the Kansa Indians, and Curtis left for Topeka to get help in the skirmish. "I ran and walked for miles, summoning help for the besieged tribe," Curtis is quoted as saying in Ewy's article. "I at last got to Topeka, where relatives of my father lived, and I decided to stay with them for a while." Curtis tried to return to his old life in 1874, when the Kansa were being moved to the Oklahoma territory. "The longing for the old life took possession of me," Curtis said in Ewy's paper. "I wanted to go back to my customs of my childhood, and so I joined the tribe once more." But fate intervened when his Grandmother Pappan had a talk with Charles and urged him to go back to Topeka to complete his education." From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Wed Jul 30 20:38:56 2003 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:38:56 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Is conference planning far enough along that we could have a rough outline of the schedule? It would be helpful for travel planning to know if the conference will take the full three days or will start Thursday evening and end Saturday morning or what. The "chair" discussion was fun -- though I didn't contribute I enjoyed reading it. You guys seemed to have the problem pretty well solved by the time I checked my email... From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 20:56:19 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:56:19 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: I have told John Koontz I'll pick him up at the Lansing airport where he is arriving August 6 at 6:58 p.m. If anyone else is flying in at around that time, I'd be happy to pick them up too and drive them to the motel in East Lansing. Please let me know if you'll want a ride around 7 p.m. or shortly thereafter (we can wait around for a little while if there are other arrivals somewhat later). I too would like to know a little about what the schedule looks like. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC [mailto:CaRudin1 at wsc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:39 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Is conference planning far enough along that we could have a rough outline of the schedule? It would be helpful for travel planning to know if the conference will take the full three days or will start Thursday evening and end Saturday morning or what. The "chair" discussion was fun -- though I didn't contribute I enjoyed reading it. You guys seemed to have the problem pretty well solved by the time I checked my email... From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Wed Jul 30 21:04:55 2003 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:04:55 +0100 Subject: on Charles Curtis Message-ID: I recall looking at a biography of CC in about 1999, seeing the extent to which his Indian connections had affected his life, and with especial interest in the way he reacted to having Kaw heritage. I forget the author of the book I read, but said author stated (on what evidence I have no idea) that CC had learned at least the rudiments of French and Kaw as a child. I wonder if he recalled any as an adult. He seems to have erased the Catholic part of his Indian past, as in later life we has (I think) a Methodist. Anthony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 20:58:11 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:58:11 -0500 Subject: Our wish Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably, > e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as > the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe. You're right, Carolyn! I was apparently mistaken when I was reconstructing it as *(e)dha. In fact, it's in the La Flesche dictionary as /e'dhe/, just as you say. It has the I- and you- forms listed, but not the we- form. The dictionary translates it as "think". What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can shed light on this. > Then 1p aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since > modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i. Yes! > So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the > wish'. I agree. > Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately: > "Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!" > ( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. ) Just one quibble here. As Bob and I argued last night, the MO-NI is for /moN-hniN/, "you walk". So it should read: Friend, we make the wish that you walk in peace/good health, etc. (The great thing about Siouan is that you're not restricted to a single finite verb per clause!) > Peacefully, > Carolyn Good advice in any case! Rory From wablenica at mail.ru Wed Jul 30 21:28:26 2003 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:28:26 +0400 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164D05@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hello everybody, I wonder whether L./D. ta'ku-yA, to have/use smt for/as smt, and taku'-yA, to have smb as some/which? relative are etymologically different words? At least Ella Deloria considered taku'yA a derivative from ta'ku, what/something. Thank you, Constantine From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 21:40:59 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:40:59 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory wrote: Just one quibble here. As Bob and I argued last night, the MO-NI is for /moN-hniN/, "you walk". So it should read: Friend, we make the wish that you walk in peace/good health, etc. CQ: Yes, I like this rendering in English. MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in peace". But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Any more chairs around? This was fun. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:58 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Our wish Carolyn wrote: > In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably, > e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as > the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe. You're right, Carolyn! I was apparently mistaken when I was reconstructing it as *(e)dha. In fact, it's in the La Flesche dictionary as /e'dhe/, just as you say. It has the I- and you- forms listed, but not the we- form. The dictionary translates it as "think". What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can shed light on this. > Then 1p aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since > modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i. Yes! > So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the > wish'. I agree. > Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately: > "Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!" > ( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. ) Just one quibble here. As Bob and I argued last night, the MO-NI is for /moN-hniN/, "you walk". So it should read: Friend, we make the wish that you walk in peace/good health, etc. (The great thing about Siouan is that you're not restricted to a single finite verb per clause!) > Peacefully, > Carolyn Good advice in any case! Rory From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jul 30 21:42:18 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:42:18 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Hi everyone, I too would like to know what the schedule will look like. I only received a few (four) abstracts. I'm hoping we can do better than that. Could all those interested in presenting a paper send me a title (an abstract is optional but would be appreciated). In addition, could those attending but not presenting a paper let me know, so that we know about how many to expect. I would like to urge everyone to present something - remember we are a rather informal lot so it doesn't need to be polished. In addition, anyone interested in getting together on Thursday for a mini-workshop on syntax let me know so we can find someplace (other than the local coffee shop) to have it. Thanks, I look forward to hearing from MANY people. Best wishes, John Boyle From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 22:01:24 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:01:24 -0500 Subject: A bit more Curtis biog. Message-ID: This is from a different web article. It confirms that Curtis learned to speak Kaw in his youth. The Kaw pow wow is this coming weekend. I'll try to talk to the Pappans if any come this year and try to find out what Curtis's Indian name was. It is probably on the tribal role from around 1860 too if I can locate that. It's an interesting question, whether or not it is on the inscription. The chair is said to have been given by "the real Curtis boys." These may refer to relatives of his or perhaps to the "court house gang" in Topeka where he was District Attorney during prohibition. Bob ************************************************ "Charles Curtis had the misfortune of being the Vice President during the Stock Market crash, and the economic down turn known as "The Great Depression". He was born in North Topeka in 1860, the great-great grandson of Kaw Indian Chief White Plume, who had given assistance to Lewis and Clark. His grandfather Louis Gonville, Chief White Plume's son in law, was French. Curtis life was dominated by his heritage and he learned to speak Kaw and French while growing up. When he was only three years old his mother died. It was the responsibility of the grandparents to raise Charles Curtis. At first he was in the custody of his Paternal grandparents but then his maternal grandparents, the Gonvilles, wanted to be sure he that they and young Charles kept their membership in the tribe in case of any future land settlements. Even though he was only 1/8th Kaw he lived on the Reservation. His knowledge of the Kaw language and his skill with a bow and arrow made him popular with the other boys. He became a tribal hero after running sixty miles to Topeka for help when the Cheyenne raided the reservation." From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 22:08:01 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:08:01 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 22:33:37 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:33:37 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: Really interesting that you'd get two reflexes of 2nd person, the first the ordinary conjugation, which erodes phonologically, and then another for 'raised 2nd person possessor.' -- if that's what it is. That's probably worthy of a paper for one of these "possessor raising" conferences. Analogical renewal or "layering", but for a slightly different category where you'd maybe expect /dhi-/ 'your' with regular verbs??? Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:08 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: any more chairs? Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 22:35:10 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:35:10 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: Or maybe it's a 'comitative'?? But that should have its own morphology too. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:08 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: any more chairs? Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 23:07:12 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:07:12 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory: Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Carolyn: Here, as elsewhere, LF is wrong about there being this n for second person in Osage verbs. He was surely filling in with his knowledge of Omaha. There are hundreds of problems in the LF dictionary, and quite a few have to do with the form given being Omaha. In fact forms like 2s sni and others that LF gives are hilarious to Osages. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:08 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: any more chairs? Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 30 23:44:34 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:44:34 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: <2721911269.20030731012826@mail.ru> Message-ID: Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable. However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the vowel or syllable might be. I have long been suspicious on semantic grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to distinguish them. I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Wablenica wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I wonder whether L./D. > > ta'ku-yA, to have/use smt for/as smt, > and > taku'-yA, to have smb as some/which? relative > > are etymologically different words? > > At least Ella Deloria considered taku'yA a derivative from ta'ku, > what/something. > > Thank you, > > Constantine > From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jul 30 23:42:36 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:42:36 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC In-Reply-To: <57.1ff18d8a.2c4e653c@aol.com> Message-ID: > Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this >information, >please let me know? > > Thanks, Ted Grimm Hi Ted, Will you be attending and presenting a paper this year? i hope so. Please let me know. Thanks, John Boyle From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jul 31 02:17:46 2003 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:17:46 -0500 Subject: Siouan glottochronology in 1804 Message-ID: W. Clark in Jrnls. Lewis & Clark Exped. 3.32: "This Great Nation who the French has given the nickname of Sciouex, Call them selves _Dar co tar_[.] their language is not peculiarly their own, they Speak a great number of words, which is the same in every respect with the Maha, Poncaser, Osarge & Kanzies. which Clearly proves that those nation at Some Period not more than a century or two past the Same nation" Alan P.S. Is the -s- in Poncaser real? (The -r is simply the reverse spelling of a hard-core nonrhotic speaker; see also Osarge.) From napshawin at hotmail.com Thu Jul 31 03:43:40 2003 From: napshawin at hotmail.com (Violet Catches) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:43:40 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From napshawin at hotmail.com Thu Jul 31 03:54:20 2003 From: napshawin at hotmail.com (Violet Catches) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:54:20 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From napshawin at hotmail.com Thu Jul 31 04:01:04 2003 From: napshawin at hotmail.com (Violet Catches) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:01:04 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jul 31 13:09:13 2003 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:09:13 -0400 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: John: I'll be prepared to give a chapter of my book: Deixis in Crow. And I do plan on being there for the syntax workshop on Thursday. Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 14:59:27 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:59:27 -0600 Subject: Our wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ > form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can > shed light on this. Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the compound *kuN=ra (both parts inflected in Dhegiha). The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < stem gaghe. The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 15:10:03 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:10:03 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: <2721911269.20030731012826@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Wablenica wrote: > I wonder whether L./D. > > ta'ku-yA, to have/use smt for/as smt, > and > taku'-yA, to have smb as some/which? relative > > are etymologically different words? > > At least Ella Deloria considered taku'yA a derivative from ta'ku, > what/something. I think there's the same form, presumably causatives of taku. The comparable form in Omaha-Ponca is e=dhe '(to be a) relative' < *e 'it, the aforesaid' + CAUSATIVE. Omaha-Ponca, like Dakota, has a possessive construction for kin formed by applying the causative to the kinterm stem. At least one textual example I have seen in Dorsey seems to suggest that the construction applies in OP for cases of "ostensive" kin, or individuals (families, actually) adopted through the pipe-dance ceremony. This is also apparent in forms like iNdadi=dhe '[Federal tribal] agent' < 'father', ttigaN=dhe 'President, Federal official' < 'grandfather'. khage=dhe 'friend' Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the > way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary > conjugates 2s as moN-ni. An example of an Omahaism in LaFlesche. > > Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might > mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed > to me a few months ago. She said that there was a > distinction in asking about "having" something, as > follows: > > KinoN'noNge aniN' a? > Do you have (possess) a car? > > KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? > Do you have (your) car (along with you)? > > I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've > brought it up to the list before. > > Is it possible that there are actually two grades > of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends > to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Anything is possible, I guess, but I suspect the article is the critical factor here. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 17:01:18 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:01:18 -0500 Subject: Our wish Message-ID: Thanks, John. It looks like I was wrong in equating the second syllable of /goN'dha/, etc., with the verb "think", Os. /edhe/. I'd like to clarify some of what you said: > whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. Did you mean =ye here, or =re? I thought *r => Dh. [dh], [y], etc., while *y => Dh. [zh]. > Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra .... > The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the > compound *kuN=ra .... So across all of Siouan, this *ra stem is known only in Dhegihan *kuN=ra ? > The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in > Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) > as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < > stem gaghe. How many distinct *k- stems do we have? Could it be that when consonant clusters are reduced, *pku- => *kku-, while *pka- => *ppa- ? I.e., high, back vowels like velar stops, while other vowels prefer labial stops? > The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, > but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. In OP we have 1s /kkoNbdhe'goN/, "I sorta want", which is recognized by our speakers, and 1s /kkoN ebdhe'goN/, "I wish", which is not recognized by our speakers, but was present in the 19th century. OP "think" is /edhe'goN/, with 1s /ebdhe'goN/. I assume this derives from Dh. *edhe, "think", + OP =e'goN, "like that" or "sorta". I don't know whether the "sorta want" and the "wish" form paradigms are full or defective. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Our wish owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 09:59 AM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ > form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can > shed light on this. Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the compound *kuN=ra (both parts inflected in Dhegiha). The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < stem gaghe. The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 17:35:01 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:35:01 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an > etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable. > However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the > vowel or syllable might be. I have long been suspicious on semantic > grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative > -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to > distinguish them. I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else. This is indeed a surprising function - at least it was to me initially, before I got used to it - it does seem to be the causative. Parallels in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages are always the causative stem of that language - yA in Dakotan, dhE in Omaha-Ponca, hi in Winnebago, etc. For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca uses gaghe 'to make' in the sense of 'to perform, to imitate, to act as if one were', e.g., for a shaman magically behaving as a particular bird or animal. This strikes me as at least analogous. JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 18:25:27 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:25:27 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: >> KinoN'noNge aniN' a? >> Do you have (possess) a car? >> >> KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? >> Do you have (your) car (along with you)? > Anything is possible, I guess, but I suspect the > article is the critical factor here. I don't think that was the case. She went out of her way to explain this to me, and reassured me repeatedly of the distinction. The implication of the second example (we're talking about a real, known car) tends to force the article, but I'm quite sure the primary distinction was intended to be made by the verb. Again, I don't know how general this is. It may well be a family dialect or an ideolect. I know that I myself have come up with definable words of my own in English that I later find no dictionary recognizes. Mark and I talked to the speakers last night. I ran this by them for /moNdhiN/. They recognized the you- form in both versions: /moNniN/ and /moNshniN/. They weren't able to establish a semantic difference that they could translate into English, but they puzzled over it a bit in a way that suggested there might be one. I've asked them to think it over and we'll check back with them later. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: any more chairs? owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 11:30 AM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the > way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary > conjugates 2s as moN-ni. An example of an Omahaism in LaFlesche. > > Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might > mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed > to me a few months ago. She said that there was a > distinction in asking about "having" something, as > follows: > > KinoN'noNge aniN' a? > Do you have (possess) a car? > > KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? > Do you have (your) car (along with you)? > > I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've > brought it up to the list before. > > Is it possible that there are actually two grades > of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends > to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Anything is possible, I guess, but I suspect the article is the critical factor here. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jul 31 18:43:54 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:43:54 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: The 'have as a relation' *-re certainly shares with the causative the epenthetic -r- and consequent regular pronominal prefixes, i.e., not the "Y-stem" or "*R-stem" prefixes. So it is either polysemous or homophonous with the causative. Morphological causatives have suus and reflexive forms (often indicating permission or acquiescence of the actor). Has anyone tried to elicit these related forms in sentences where they would signal relation rather than causation? That might provide a test. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:35 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: taku- vs. taku- On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an > etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable. > However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the > vowel or syllable might be. I have long been suspicious on semantic > grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative > -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to > distinguish them. I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else. This is indeed a surprising function - at least it was to me initially, before I got used to it - it does seem to be the causative. Parallels in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages are always the causative stem of that language - yA in Dakotan, dhE in Omaha-Ponca, hi in Winnebago, etc. For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca uses gaghe 'to make' in the sense of 'to perform, to imitate, to act as if one were', e.g., for a shaman magically behaving as a particular bird or animal. This strikes me as at least analogous. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 19:02:14 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:02:14 -0600 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I don't think that was the case. She went out of her way to explain > this to me, and reassured me repeatedly of the distinction. The > implication of the second example (we're talking about a real, known > car) tends to force the article, but I'm quite sure the primary > distinction was intended to be made by the verb. You can perhaps test with non-dh-stem verbs in the same frame, or other dh-stem verbs in the same frame. > Again, I don't know how general this is. It may well be a family > dialect or an ideolect. This is possible. > I know that I myself have come up with definable words of my own in > English that I later find no dictionary recognizes. Not quite parallel, but I know the feeling! > Mark and I talked to the speakers last night. I ran this by them for > /moNdhiN/. They recognized the you- form in both versions: /moNniN/ > and /moNshniN/. They weren't able to establish a semantic difference > that they could translate into English, but they puzzled over it a bit > in a way that suggested there might be one. I've asked them to think > it over and we'll check back with them later. You have to be a bit careful with situations like this. While the speaker is the primary source, you can't entirely rely on their judgement to determine whether a distinction exists or does not exist. In the end you have to rely on their behavior - what they do as opposed to what they think they do. What they think they do is always quite interesting and in many cases will be a perfectly reasonable short cut. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jul 31 19:06:23 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:06:23 -0500 Subject: Our wish Message-ID: I haven't checked Chiwere/Winnebago, but as far as I know only Dhegiha has the *-ra part of 'want'. The Dakotan cognate is just /kuN/ 'covet'. It isn't related to Omaha /egaN/, at least not the one used to signal anterior aspect in series of VP's. This latter is related to Dakotan /k?uN/ and seems to be a definite article compounded with *?uN 'do, be'. bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:01 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Our wish Thanks, John. It looks like I was wrong in equating the second syllable of /goN'dha/, etc., with the verb "think", Os. /edhe/. I'd like to clarify some of what you said: > whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. Did you mean =ye here, or =re? I thought *r => Dh. [dh], [y], etc., while *y => Dh. [zh]. > Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra .... > The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the > compound *kuN=ra .... So across all of Siouan, this *ra stem is known only in Dhegihan *kuN=ra ? > The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in > Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) > as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < > stem gaghe. How many distinct *k- stems do we have? Could it be that when consonant clusters are reduced, *pku- => *kku-, while *pka- => *ppa- ? I.e., high, back vowels like velar stops, while other vowels prefer labial stops? > The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, > but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. In OP we have 1s /kkoNbdhe'goN/, "I sorta want", which is recognized by our speakers, and 1s /kkoN ebdhe'goN/, "I wish", which is not recognized by our speakers, but was present in the 19th century. OP "think" is /edhe'goN/, with 1s /ebdhe'goN/. I assume this derives from Dh. *edhe, "think", + OP =e'goN, "like that" or "sorta". I don't know whether the "sorta want" and the "wish" form paradigms are full or defective. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Our wish owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 09:59 AM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ > form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can > shed light on this. Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the compound *kuN=ra (both parts inflected in Dhegiha). The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < stem gaghe. The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 19:42:43 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:42:43 -0500 Subject: Chair Message-ID: So what can we agree on now regarding the chair inscription? I think we're debating at least three general questions: 1. What does the inscription intend to say? 2. What language is it supposed to be written in? 3. Who wrote it? Carolyn and I are in substantial agreement on point 1), with a possible quibble over whether MO-NI should be second or third person. John has a different view of the meaning of KO(n)ONTHA, which would alter the message radically. We've considered Louis Garcia's suggestion that Curtis' Indian name should be in there; Bob is looking into what that name may have been. Nevertheless, we all seem to agree that the first part reads: KOTHA UGASHE THI(n)GE XTSI MONI Friend, ailment none very walk Friend, (you?) walk with absolutely no ailment/trouble... Point 2 seems to be up in the air. We've had claims for every Dhegihan language but Quapaw. Considerations are: Curtis' tribal affiliation was Kaw, so we would expect it to come from them. Some of the words and spelling appear to be Osage. Some of the grammar and spelling appears to be Omaha. (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) Point 3 hasn't been argued too vigorously. I suggested that it might have been Francis La Flesche, and Bob at least seems open to the idea. At any rate, the redactor appears to have been a native speaker who approached the task from an Omaha or Ponka orthographical, and probably grammatical, background. Any additions or disagreements with this summary? Rory From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Thu Jul 31 20:05:14 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:05:14 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: <1E4E8370.1A0273D1.0080EA7D@aol.com> Message-ID: >John: > >I'll be prepared to give a chapter of my book: Deixis in Crow. And >I do plan on being there for the syntax workshop on Thursday. > >Randy Thanks Randy, the conference line up was looking a little thin there. Talk to you soon, John From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 20:11:31 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:11:31 -0500 Subject: Vote for Osage! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A good summary! I think it's all Osage:-). It's strange, though, that someone would write out the o'kas^e'iNke 'trouble none' as two separate words, since it's always together with the dh elided as I've written it here. At least nowadays and in every rendition I've ever heard spoken. (But everyone knows that it "really" is made up of the two separate words). The careful two-word approach reflects either an earlier speech pattern, or someone trying to be very correct, or ---copying words out of a dictionary! Doesn't match too well with my idea of maNiN being maNdhiN 'walk, go forth', that is to say if anyone were so careful to write the o'kas^e'iNke rather formally, then it's odd that the person would not be so careful of the latter. Unless it was LF who erroneously thought he was representing very standard Osage with maNiN'? Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:43 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Chair So what can we agree on now regarding the chair inscription? I think we're debating at least three general questions: 1. What does the inscription intend to say? 2. What language is it supposed to be written in? 3. Who wrote it? Carolyn and I are in substantial agreement on point 1), with a possible quibble over whether MO-NI should be second or third person. John has a different view of the meaning of KO(n)ONTHA, which would alter the message radically. We've considered Louis Garcia's suggestion that Curtis' Indian name should be in there; Bob is looking into what that name may have been. Nevertheless, we all seem to agree that the first part reads: KOTHA UGASHE THI(n)GE XTSI MONI Friend, ailment none very walk Friend, (you?) walk with absolutely no ailment/trouble... Point 2 seems to be up in the air. We've had claims for every Dhegihan language but Quapaw. Considerations are: Curtis' tribal affiliation was Kaw, so we would expect it to come from them. Some of the words and spelling appear to be Osage. Some of the grammar and spelling appears to be Omaha. (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) Point 3 hasn't been argued too vigorously. I suggested that it might have been Francis La Flesche, and Bob at least seems open to the idea. At any rate, the redactor appears to have been a native speaker who approached the task from an Omaha or Ponka orthographical, and probably grammatical, background. Any additions or disagreements with this summary? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 20:20:30 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:30 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: > Rory: Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary > conjugates 2s as moN-ni. > Carolyn: Here, as elsewhere, LF is wrong about there being this n for second > person in Osage verbs. He was surely filling in with his knowledge of > Omaha. There are hundreds of problems in the LF dictionary, and quite a few > have to do with the form given being Omaha. > In fact forms like 2s sni and others that LF gives are hilarious to Osages. > Carolyn That may be, but the presence of moN-ni in the La Flesche Osage dictionary is still relevant to the question of the inscription. There is a striking similarity in the mixture of Omaha with Osage in both works, and it seems very likely that the party that wrote the inscription was either La Flesche himself, or someone relying on his dictionary. In either case, that party would probably be expecting the 2s of /moNdhiN/ to be the form which is listed in that dictionary. If so, that would mean that MO-NI is intended to mean "you walk", even though that may never have been the real Osage form. Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 20:36:24 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:24 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:21 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: any more chairs? That may be, but the presence of moN-ni in the La Flesche Osage dictionary is still relevant to the question of the inscription. There is a striking similarity in the mixture of Omaha with Osage in both works, and it seems very likely that the party that wrote the inscription was either La Flesche himself, or someone relying on his dictionary. In either case, that party would probably be expecting the 2s of /moNdhiN/ to be the form which is listed in that dictionary. If so, that would mean that MO-NI is intended to mean "you walk", even though that may never have been the real Osage form. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 20:49:17 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:49:17 -0500 Subject: Vote for Osage! Message-ID: "Intended Osage" gets my vote. :-) Unless Bob wants to make a case for Kaw... ?? Rory "Carolyn Quintero" et> cc: Sent by: Subject: Vote for Osage! owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 03:11 PM Please respond to siouan A good summary! I think it's all Osage:-). It's strange, though, that someone would write out the o'kas^e'iNke 'trouble none' as two separate words, since it's always together with the dh elided as I've written it here. At least nowadays and in every rendition I've ever heard spoken. (But everyone knows that it "really" is made up of the two separate words). The careful two-word approach reflects either an earlier speech pattern, or someone trying to be very correct, or ---copying words out of a dictionary! Doesn't match too well with my idea of maNiN being maNdhiN 'walk, go forth', that is to say if anyone were so careful to write the o'kas^e'iNke rather formally, then it's odd that the person would not be so careful of the latter. Unless it was LF who erroneously thought he was representing very standard Osage with maNiN'? Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:43 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Chair So what can we agree on now regarding the chair inscription? I think we're debating at least three general questions: 1. What does the inscription intend to say? 2. What language is it supposed to be written in? 3. Who wrote it? Carolyn and I are in substantial agreement on point 1), with a possible quibble over whether MO-NI should be second or third person. John has a different view of the meaning of KO(n)ONTHA, which would alter the message radically. We've considered Louis Garcia's suggestion that Curtis' Indian name should be in there; Bob is looking into what that name may have been. Nevertheless, we all seem to agree that the first part reads: KOTHA UGASHE THI(n)GE XTSI MONI Friend, ailment none very walk Friend, (you?) walk with absolutely no ailment/trouble... Point 2 seems to be up in the air. We've had claims for every Dhegihan language but Quapaw. Considerations are: Curtis' tribal affiliation was Kaw, so we would expect it to come from them. Some of the words and spelling appear to be Osage. Some of the grammar and spelling appears to be Omaha. (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) Point 3 hasn't been argued too vigorously. I suggested that it might have been Francis La Flesche, and Bob at least seems open to the idea. At any rate, the redactor appears to have been a native speaker who approached the task from an Omaha or Ponka orthographical, and probably grammatical, background. Any additions or disagreements with this summary? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 20:59:25 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:59:25 -0600 Subject: Chair In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers > last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do > not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as > anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the > Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not > recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of > these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) There is a song in Fletcher & LaFlesche that has iNdakkudha '(my) friend' in it. This is possibly a Dakota loan. However, this is a good point. The usual term for 'male friend' in OP in all recorded periods is khage, even though learned linguists might recognize kku/odha. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 21:04:30 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:04:30 -0600 Subject: Vote for Osage! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > Doesn't match too well with my idea of maNiN being maNdhiN 'walk, go forth', > that is to say if anyone were so careful to write the o'kas^e'iNke rather > formally, then it's odd that the person would not be so careful of the > latter. Unless it was LF who erroneously thought he was representing very > standard Osage with maNiN'? I'm assuming they're writing moni for [maNniN], with nasalization of the vowels not indicated, but /dh/ heard as [n] between nasal vowels. That would make the usage more consistant. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 21:13:45 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:13:45 -0600 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > In either case, that party would probably be expecting the 2s of > /moNdhiN/ to be the form which is listed in that dictionary. If so, > that would mean that MO-NI is intended to mean "you walk", even though > that may never have been the real Osage form. This is an important issue for interpretation of the whole text. At least in OP maNdhiN embedded under gaNdha would be inflected (OP maN(s^)niN), but the imperative (under OP ga IMP m. or a IMP f.) would be uninflected - imperatives have no explicit second person marking (OP maNdhiN). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 21:41:35 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:41:35 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Violet Catches wrote: > takuya 'some things' really should be 'taku-eya', often if you don't > question your informant, they will use colloquial, as if its the real way > to say something. This is intriguing me. Violet, what does eya alone mean, then? From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jul 31 17:31:53 2003 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:31:53 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Randy: Did you publish a book on Crow? Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:09 AM Subject: Re: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference > John: > > I'll be prepared to give a chapter of my book: Deixis in Crow. And I do plan on being there for the syntax workshop on Thursday. > > Randy > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 3 04:36:50 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:36:50 -0600 Subject: Out of Touch Message-ID: The University of Colorado will be making extensive modifications to its email system over the July 4th weekend, retiring its oldest mail server. This entails shutting down also the slightly newer server that I use for University mail, including monitoring the list. This will last from late July 3rd through the weekend. I do not believe this will interrupt use of the list, though it may. However, I will be out of touch myself, unable to respond to service requests, see list postings, etc. Any mail to me will eventually go through, when service is restored. The same applies to mail to the list if that is affected. I will probably be shifting to a new mail server myself afterwards, as they are encouraging this. I'll let the list know when I start that process, in case it also affects my ability to carry out functions. Hopefully any affects will be soon remedied. I don't really expect any problems, but I am experiencing a certain amount of trepidation ... since the requirement to use ssh to access web pages I haven't been able to get back into my web page ... technically possible, but I haven't quite pulled it off. FrontPage and the scp client aren't quite as ready to communicate to talk as the documentation implies. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 00:47:34 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:47:34 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm getting that from one or more explicit charts with commentary > in the Dorsey dictionary, or some of the other notes on reels in > Mark's collection. I haven't worked that out on my own from the > texts, so I may be out on a limb here. From Box 1, Reel 22, > Slide 7: > > akHa', cl. the sing. or collective sub. of an action, that is > performed of his or their own accord, and not by request ... These examples were originally presented in: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=siouan&P=R792 The version I have comes from the NAA 4800 Dorsey Papers, Item 120 "Envelope marked "C/egiha Grammatical Notes. Not copied on slips Nov/93." The table illustrating the interactions of aspect and proximity marking doesn't lend itself to exact reproduction, but by rearranging things a bit I can give as follows. I have changed the orthography to the one I use in email and indicated my own comments with my initials. Sentences in pairs to be glossed as follows. JEK x.1 "The horse eats or ate the corn (complete action)" x.2 "The horse is eating the corn (continuous or incomplete action)" Preceding quoted glosses and parenthetical notes are Dorsey's exact words. So the first sentence in each pair below is perfective, and the second is imperfective, though these terms are not perhaps quite apt. JEK Dorsey's first column (JEK): "By Consent or Command" (Dorsey's words, i.e., obviative subject JEK) A = "if standing" A.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe'e ha A.2 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe thaN ha B = "if moving" B.1 s^aNge dhiN wahaba khe dhathe'e ha B.2 s^aNge dhiN wahaba khe dhathe dhiN ha C = "if sitting" C.1 s^aNge dhiNkhe wahaba khe dhathe'e ha C.2 s^aNge dhiNkhe wahaba khe dhathe dhiNkhe ha D = "if reclining" D.1 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe'e ha D.2 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe khe ha E = "if standing, past time; action occurring then, not now" E.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe dhaN s^ti E.2 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe thaN dhaN s^ti [thaN + dhaN? spurious? JEK] F = "if standing, past time (present time not excluded)." F.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhate the ha [no F.2 example JEK] So the pattern for the continuous obviative (x.2 examples) is to use the obviative (or object) articles with the subject and with the verb (as a progressive auxiliary). JEK The pattern for the completive is to replace the auxiliary with =e. JEK In the past time forms (evidentials, like Turkish perfects) there is probably no contrast of x.1 and x.2, and the single form has the unmarked verb stem followed by dhaN(s^ti) or the. E.2 is probably spurious. JEK "Without Consent or Command" (Dorsey's words, i.e., proximate subject JEK) A = "if standing" A.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhathai ha A.2 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhate akha ha B = "if moving" B.1 s^aNge ama wahaba khe dhathai ha B.2 s^aNge ama wahaba khe dhathe ama ha C = "if sitting" No proximate examples. JEK D = "if reclining" No proximate examples. JEK E = "if standing, past time; action occurring then, not now" E.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhathai dhaN s^ti [no E.2 example JEK] F = "if standing, past time (present time not excluded)." F.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhatai the ha [no F.2 example] So the pattern for the continuous proximate (x.2 examples) is to use the proximate (or subject) articles with the subject and with the verb (as a progressive auxiliary). JKE The pattern for the completive is to use the plural/proximate marker =i. JEK In the past time forms (evidentials, like Turkish perfects) there is probably no contrast of x.1 and x.2, and the single form has the plural/proximate form followed by dhaN(s^ti) or the. JEK "All in dicty; not yet in Gr./86" (JOD's words) ===== My comments: It seems doubtful that =e (the final e in dhate'e) is acutally the marker of perfective obviation in the A-D.1 obviative examples. Examples without it occur in texts, and this marker is also found with first persons. It is also clearly not a variant of =i, being actually opposed to it in this table. Moreover =e does not condition ablaut, while =i does. My suggestion is that =e is a marker appropriate to the third person obviative perfective context, but not indicating it per se, or restricted to it. I'd suggest a new information or focus marker, something analogous to "It is/was the horse that ate the corn." or "The horse is the one who ate the corn." Note that "by consent or command" is a variant of Dorsey's reports elsewhere that obviative forms indicate that the subject was out of site while acting or acted on behalf of someone else. By contrast proximate forms indicate that the subject was visible or acted for itself. In the case of the horse eating the corn, this means, pragmatically, that a horse eating corn on its own initiative is doing so improperly. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 01:02:35 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:02:35 -0600 Subject: We're Baaa-ack Message-ID: It looks like the mail servers are ready already. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 01:01:23 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:01:23 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Well, actually, this seems to make the issue one of akHa' vs. > tHoN, rather than =i vs. no =i. The distinction between third person singular proximate and obviative in progressives (or imperfectives) is marked by the article used with the subject (akha/ama vs. thaN/dhiN/dhiNkhe/khe) and also by the use of the same two sets as as the auxiliaries with the verb. The distinction between third person singular proximate and obviative in non-progressives (perfectives) is indicated by the article used with the subject (akha/ama vs. thaN/dhiN/dhiNkhe/khe again) and the use or non-use of =i/=bi with the verb. The use of =i or =bi is conditioned by other contextual factors. > And then there's that intriguing =e in the tHoN case, which doesn't > cause a-grade ablaut. I discussed that in the preceding letter. > Perhaps the "independent of outside influence" has > to do only with the proximate positionals akHa' and ama', > and not with =i and =bi, though these two sets certainly do > seem to like each other. Yes. Though the overall behavior is complex the general observation is that both article/auxiliary use and =(b)(i) use serve to mark the proximate/obviative (or without conset/with consent) distinction. When both occur, they should agree. Matters are much complicated by such cross-cutting issues as use of the "obviative subject" articles to mark objects and oblique sentence articles, by the use of =(b)(i) to mark plurals, and by the occurrence of =e in some contexts for separate reasons. Also, by the positional gender control of forms within each article set, and by the direct/reported contrast marked in by =i vs. =bi. And whatever is marked by nothing vs. =e in non-progressive obviatives. This must be rather difficult to approach begining students with. "Bad news, class! Today we start the definite article and third person singular." JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 01:50:45 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:50:45 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Yes! That's a very interesting point. It appears that all the cases > of future + positional cause the tte to ablaut to tta. > > tta miNkHe I-future ... > tta tHe constrained future > > What's especially interesting to me here is that the a-grade ablaut > occurs, not just before (probably) every positional, but even before > the conjugated form of each positional. > > Wouldn't this suggest that what is causing ablaut is not the passive > front end of a particle that happened to begin with a- (e.g. an > aboriginal *=api), but rather a separate particle *=a- that once stood > regularly in front of particles of a definite grammatical class? Bob said I might say something about this, but I've hesitated, because I've said an awful lot about it in the past, and I think it may be rather in oversupply for the market. However, I've thought of a way to say things a bit differently, so I'll try it. I'd have to say that =api (plural/proximate) is a rather different case from "positionals in various uses," and need not be governed by the same factors. After all, there are only so many vowels to work with: different cases of "a" need not arise from the same factors, or, if they do, may arise at such different times in the history of the source of "a" in question as to be effectively unrelated. However, I agreee that the positional cases in particular suggest an independent morpheme -a-. I suspect the context is less of a case of what follows than of what precedes, e.g., a nominalization. What I've argued, in effect, is that =a is a nominalizer of some sort, perhaps originally an article, but now perceived (by linguists anyway) as conditioned by the following later layer of nominalizers (the positional articles), but originally present in its own right. The progress of the phenomenon would be something like this. Stage I: Add =a to mark nominalizations (or some of them). We're necessarily a little vague about specific contexts, as the remnants of the system are much worn down and probably extensively reformulated. Stage II: Some sort of vowel change (e > a) occurs at the end of (some) nominalized forms. Stage III: Add positionals to mark some sorts of nominalizations. I'm saying nominalizations, but of course, it's really "nouns," and the nouns are nominalizations only if they happen to be clauses ending in verbs. The actual marker of nominalizations is probably "nothing." But once you have a noun you can add an appropriate "post-nominal" particle (like an article). If you add the same particle to all nouns it is beginning to function something like a nominalizer, especially when added to a verb. In the nature of things Stages I and II and II and III, maybe even all three must overlap, though Stage I begins before II begins before III. In the end, however, you have a system with Stage III and the observed rule that certain forms change e to a when a positional follows them. In some cases the rule about adding -a or changing to it may have been lost. Certainly a great many nouns do not end in -a or reflexes of *-ra (with epenthetic -r- after vowels). In fact, a-final nouns with clearly added -a are only really common in Dakotan. Elsewhere those nouns today end in -e or nothing. In other cases the -a- may have been accidentally reassociated with the following positional (e.g., the OP proximate subject articles ama and akha). In other cases =ra (< *-ra) may still be taken to be something like an article, and positionals may still fall something rather short of being articles, though occurring with some NPs, this being essentially the case in Winnebago. In Dakotan -a and -ya (< *-ra) are variable endings of some nouns (when the nouns are not incorporated or when -e doesn't replace -a in possessed forms) and =ki is the (main) article, while positionals are mostly used only with verbs, as auxiliaries. I keep offering this as a hypothesis, though it hasn't exactly taken folks by storm. Many details need to be worked out. It doesn't account for the core of -e ~ -a phenomena in the verb, with pluralization, for example, and there may or may not be good examples of *a as a demonstrative. Also, as there are maybe some traces =ki in Southeastern, figuring out whether and how *=ki enters into things is also a definite consideration. I've sometimes wondered if -e as a noun final might not be from =a=ki with intervocalic loss of -k-. If *=ki was lost throughout Mississippi Valley and only, perhaps, restored analogically in Dakotan from some sort of relict context, that might explain a lot. I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally nominalizations, i.e., what was originally (and still is structurally) "the horse's eating of the corn" or, better, "the horse which is eating the corn" is now functionally "the horse is eating the corn." This sort of progression occurs commonly in language. These nominalizations do not have -a-. The verbs involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a- in the inclusive inflected forms. Though I don't know why, I think those Dhegiha futures in =tta=miNkhe, ... are also nominalized, from *=tk=a=POSITIONAL. This is probably an old pattern, because I suspect that those Hidatsa and Crow inflected futures are worn down remnants of the same structure, with only accented syllables of the auxiliary remaining. It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained, but I gather it doesn't. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 05:19:47 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:19:47 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Anyone interested in sharing a room for the conference? I guess a male non-smoker would work best! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jul 5 15:44:22 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:44:22 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Sure. If that's OK and no one has already asked. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:20 AM To: Siouan List Subject: Anyone interested in sharing a room for the conference? I guess a male non-smoker would work best! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jul 5 17:56:39 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:56:39 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > tta miNkHe I-future > tta tHe constrained future > JEK: I'd have to say that =api (plural/proximate) is a rather different case from "positionals in various uses," and need not be governed by the same factors. RLR: I'd agree with that. My analysis of [a] as suffix-initial is for 'imperative', 'negative' and 'plural/prox'. I agree that continuatives are different. I did, in fact, do a handout for a comparative syntax seminar I gave about 3 years ago in which I treated all of the miNkhe, etc. forms as collapsed bi-clausal constructions, so I think John and I are thinking along the same lines. I'll take a look at what I did and see if it would make a good conference paper -- my recollection is that it sort of baffled my students, so maybe it doesn't make much sense. I don't think it followed John's progression of grammaticalization in any event. > JEK: I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally nominalizations,... These nominalizations do not have -a-. The verbs involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a- in the inclusive inflected forms. >Though I don't know why, I think those Dhegiha futures in =tta=miNkhe, ... are also nominalized, from *=tk=a=POSITIONAL. This is probably an old pattern, because I suspect that those Hidatsa and Crow inflected futures are worn down remnants of the same structure, with only accented syllables of the auxiliary remaining. It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained, but I gather it doesn't. RLR: Sorry, I'm sitting here on Sat. a.m. half asleep, but I don't know what you're referring to with *=tk. Could you possibly mean *kt- the 'irrealis' marker? Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 20:26:36 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:26:36 -0600 Subject: No subject In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D165AAE@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Nope, I'm still looking. I wasn't sure if you were available, being a little vague on where in the Old NW you had family. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jul 5 20:32:33 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:32:33 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164CC6@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > JEK: I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally > nominalizations,... These nominalizations do not have -a-. The verbs > involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as > a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a- > in the inclusive inflected forms. I should probably have said "though a-ma and a-kha have *an* -a-," thinking about this, not taking the identity of morphs for granted. > JEK: ... It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained [in the Crow > and Hidatsa futures], but I gather it doesn't. > > RLR: Sorry, I'm sitting here on Sat. a.m. half asleep, but I don't know what > you're referring to with *=tk. Could you possibly mean *kt- the 'irrealis' Oops, yes, I definitely meant -kt-. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jul 6 02:18:27 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:18:27 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Wabash and Indianapolis Indiana. I already saw them last month after going to Bloomington. I plan on driving up and back unless there's a train. A roomie to share the $$$ would be a good thing. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 3:27 PM To: Siouan List Subject: RE: Nope, I'm still looking. I wasn't sure if you were available, being a little vague on where in the Old NW you had family. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 11 05:16:10 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:16:10 -0600 Subject: Dorsey and West Virginia; Sentence Final Markers Message-ID: I knew there was a reason I associated James O. Dorsey with West Virginia, apart from the fact that I seem to recall that he's buried somewhere in Western Maryland - Harper's Ferry? Anyway, like all of us, he occasionally took notes on envelopes, and NAA 4800 Dorsey Papers: Dhegiha 120 includes one of them, which is addressed Rev. J. Owen Dorsey, Hedgesville, Berkeley Co., W. Va. The postmark reads Omaha Agency Neb Mar 1, but I can't make out the year. The note on the envelope appears to be men say ...[a?][n?]au yes women say .... ena'+ (?) In other words, a note on sentence final forms. These appear to be variants of the 'announcement' marker. I think I've sen adha(u) and edha, too, maybe in song texts. Above ths in the xerox on another slip is a list of "Punctuation signs (oral)" [i.e., sentence final forms] for a number of Siouan languages: do ha, he ke ke-i s' ts - -k [Sa] O[m] I[o] Ot Ma Hid Crw These are declaratives. Under O is written Qu, K & Os, though I think this annotation is not quite right. Below this is he a a'haN a'daN a'dha hai-a ehaN+ edaN+ e'dhe ha-he adaN ba, badaN These are additional Omaha (and Ponca) forms. I'm using N for raised n and dh for cent-sign (edh) V' is an accented vowel. In the first row he looks like the feminine declarative again, but I don't recognize hai-a or ha-he, so I'm not sure what he's getting at here. A simple a is the interrogative (or female imperative). AdaN is something like 'therefore' and also occurs finally in quoted questions. Ba and BadaN would be -bi + a and -bi + adaN, for cases where -bi precedes these markers. Dorsey generally lists contractions of -bi and -tta with following elements as distinct elements, e.g., biama, bas^e, baz^i, ttadaN, ttathe, ttas^e, etc. AhaN and ehaN occur with exclamations. For adaN and edaN see above. Adha and edhe are glossed 'indeed' in the texts and might be called emphatic. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jul 11 06:09:55 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:09:55 -0600 Subject: Winnebago =ire In-Reply-To: <3EEEDAC7.5010401@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > The idea that -wi is a general pluralizer is not quite correct. It is > used to pluralize first and second person prefixes of the actor and > undergoer series of pronominal prefixes. I never saw it pluralizing a > 3sg which is zero in Hocank. The example you cited from Lipkind - if it > really exists - is certainly not the standard form. I did not come > across the form xawi as a regular form for 3pl-bury. Both forms we are > talking about are in complementary distribution. I thought I would look to see if there were any evidence that Lipkind wasn't totally off track in this assertion, tbough I'm not sure where he might have made it. Was it perhaps Sussman? The Siouan Archives copy of SUssman, second file, contains wi 'general plurality'. Lipkind's lack of a table of contents makes it hard, sometimes, to find things in, but the discussion of -wi vs. -ire that I've noticed in a quick scan is on pp. 37-8 and does not include -wi with a third person. See also p. 7, for a discussion of -wi and ablaut. However, looking in the Winnebago texts in the Siouan Archives I find: hoc^iNc^i(N)=niNk=wi= ra 'boys' (as a vocative) boy DIM ??? DEF nigwadjirekdjawi '(they) come after you' niNgoo= aji-re= kja= wi you invite they set out will ??? I suspect that in the second case the =wi pluralizes the object you. Perhaps vocatives are also taken as second persons? This is certainly worth pursuing a little further, if only to determine when and how the confusion arose. JEK From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Mon Jul 14 20:40:15 2003 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:40:15 -0500 Subject: Mandan Place Names Message-ID: Hi gang: I saw this 'paper' listed in the archives. Carter, R. T. Jr. "Maximilians Ruture Vocabulary: Philogical Evidence and Mandan Phonology". Proceedings from the 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. University of Kansas 1991. Can any tell me if Mr. Carter discusses Mandan place names? I tried to borrow this publication through Inter-Library Loan but they can't seem to find anyone who has a copy. If he does discuss places names - can some one please send me a copy? Thank you, Louie G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jul 21 04:53:50 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:53:50 -0600 Subject: Mandan Place Names In-Reply-To: <000a01c34a48$217ac2e0$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Louis Garcia wrote: > I saw this 'paper' listed in the archives. > > Carter, R. T. Jr. "Maximilians Ruture Vocabulary: Philogical Evidence > and Mandan Phonology". Proceedings from the 1990 Mid-America > Linguistics Conference. University of Kansas 1991. > > Can any tell me if Mr. Carter discusses Mandan place names? I tried to > borrow this publication through Inter-Library Loan but they can't seem > to find anyone who has a copy. If he does discuss places names - can > some one please send me a copy? Louis, I don't think I can help with this directly. I am missing one or two of the MidAmerica Conference Proceedings in which some Siouan and Caddoan Conference papers were published, and all Proceedings are in the unpacked "journals" boxes since my last move. I am, however, very determined that this will be my last move for a very long time, if I have anythign to say about it. However, I do know that MALC proceedings are distributed by the University that sponsored the particular meeting in question, and it loks like that would be the U of Kansas. So I would write to the Department of Linguistics at the University of Kansas - can probably find email contact stuff at their web site, for that matter - and ask if they have a copy for sale. Most likely they do, though I can't promise anything. It might take a bit of time and effort to get them to locate the leftover, but maybe not. Or try ILL with this information. MALC is no where near as prestigious as CLS or BLS or even NELS and they don't have a central repository for proceedings, and libraries don't always feel that having copies of the proceedings of even these is worthwhile, but the papers should be available somewhere. Carter left the list when he left South Dakota. I have the impresion he might be in China now, though I'm not absolutely positive. He's not currently on the list. My recollection of the paper - from hearing it delivered - is that it doesn't deal with placenames at all, though it might logically mention some. Instead it concentrates on differences noted by Maximillien and some similarities with the variant forms in Hollow's dictionary. JEK From Ogalala2 at aol.com Tue Jul 22 10:00:28 2003 From: Ogalala2 at aol.com (Ogalala2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:00:28 EDT Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 22 13:54:53 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:54:53 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: Hi Ted, Here's the info. bob ******************* Hi Everyone, General Information: As has been mentioned, the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan conference is quickly approaching. General information can be found at our website at . Please check it out. Abstracts are due July 3rd. The early date is so we can try and get the information into the LSA brochure (Names, titles etc.). Please use e-mail as I seldom get to campus in the summer and I don't want to leave anyone out. Lodging: We originally had planned to use the Ramada Inn for our lodging but it recently burned down. Our new hotel of choice is the Clarion. We receive a discount rate of $69.00/night. (Just let them know that you are with the LSA). I would suggest making reservations sooner rather than latter as there is some other event that weekend which has nothing to do with Linguistics. The toll free number for the Clarion is: 877-533-1200. It is located at 3600 Dunkel Dr., Lansing, MI. (East Lansing is right across the street). It is close to the university, a little under a mile from the student center. (I'm not sure where we will be meeting yet). Alternative lodging can be found on campus at the Kellogg center, although prices range from $69.00 - $89.00. There are also several other places on campus but the Clarion is the cheapest lodging close by. If you are interested in other options, please let me know. Parasession: The conference dates will be Friday and Saturday August 8th & 9th. There will be an informal syntax parasession on August 7th. The topic we had previously discussed is "junction/juncture". Which means it is pretty wide open. Nothing formal need be done for this although I would like to know who is interested in attending and/or presenting so that we can arrange for a space. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you all at the conference. Best wishes, John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: Ogalala2 at aol.com [mailto:Ogalala2 at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: 2003 SACLC Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 22 14:04:56 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:04:56 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: Sorry, apparently I hit "reply" instead of "forward". Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:55 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: RE: 2003 SACLC Hi Ted, Here's the info. bob ******************* Hi Everyone, General Information: As has been mentioned, the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan conference is quickly approaching. General information can be found at our website at . Please check it out. Abstracts are due July 3rd. The early date is so we can try and get the information into the LSA brochure (Names, titles etc.). Please use e-mail as I seldom get to campus in the summer and I don't want to leave anyone out. Lodging: We originally had planned to use the Ramada Inn for our lodging but it recently burned down. Our new hotel of choice is the Clarion. We receive a discount rate of $69.00/night. (Just let them know that you are with the LSA). I would suggest making reservations sooner rather than latter as there is some other event that weekend which has nothing to do with Linguistics. The toll free number for the Clarion is: 877-533-1200. It is located at 3600 Dunkel Dr., Lansing, MI. (East Lansing is right across the street). It is close to the university, a little under a mile from the student center. (I'm not sure where we will be meeting yet). Alternative lodging can be found on campus at the Kellogg center, although prices range from $69.00 - $89.00. There are also several other places on campus but the Clarion is the cheapest lodging close by. If you are interested in other options, please let me know. Parasession: The conference dates will be Friday and Saturday August 8th & 9th. There will be an informal syntax parasession on August 7th. The topic we had previously discussed is "junction/juncture". Which means it is pretty wide open. Nothing formal need be done for this although I would like to know who is interested in attending and/or presenting so that we can arrange for a space. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you all at the conference. Best wishes, John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: Ogalala2 at aol.com [mailto:Ogalala2 at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: 2003 SACLC Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jul 22 15:42:28 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:42:28 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC Message-ID: That's okay. Some of us other laggards can use the update too. Rory "Rankin, Robert L" To: "'siouan at lists.colorado.edu'" Sent by: owner-siouan at lists.c cc: olorado.edu Subject: RE: 2003 SACLC 07/22/2003 09:04 AM Please respond to siouan Sorry, apparently I hit "reply" instead of "forward". Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:55 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: RE: 2003 SACLC Hi Ted, Here's the info. bob ******************* Hi Everyone, General Information: As has been mentioned, the 23rd Siouan and Caddoan conference is quickly approaching. General information can be found at our website at . Please check it out. Abstracts are due July 3rd. The early date is so we can try and get the information into the LSA brochure (Names, titles etc.). Please use e-mail as I seldom get to campus in the summer and I don't want to leave anyone out. Lodging: We originally had planned to use the Ramada Inn for our lodging but it recently burned down. Our new hotel of choice is the Clarion. We receive a discount rate of $69.00/night. (Just let them know that you are with the LSA). I would suggest making reservations sooner rather than latter as there is some other event that weekend which has nothing to do with Linguistics. The toll free number for the Clarion is: 877-533-1200. It is located at 3600 Dunkel Dr., Lansing, MI. (East Lansing is right across the street). It is close to the university, a little under a mile from the student center. (I'm not sure where we will be meeting yet). Alternative lodging can be found on campus at the Kellogg center, although prices range from $69.00 - $89.00. There are also several other places on campus but the Clarion is the cheapest lodging close by. If you are interested in other options, please let me know. Parasession: The conference dates will be Friday and Saturday August 8th & 9th. There will be an informal syntax parasession on August 7th. The topic we had previously discussed is "junction/juncture". Which means it is pretty wide open. Nothing formal need be done for this although I would like to know who is interested in attending and/or presenting so that we can arrange for a space. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you all at the conference. Best wishes, John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago -----Original Message----- From: Ogalala2 at aol.com [mailto:Ogalala2 at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:00 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: 2003 SACLC Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this information, please let me know? Thanks, Ted Grimm From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 29 20:49:55 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:49:55 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: I have received the appended request from one of the curators for the U.S. Senate to translate an inscription he believes to be in the Kaw language. It includes a photograph of the inscription, which is on a chair presented to Charles Curtis when he was Vice President of the United States from 1929-1933. Curtis was part Kaw. I hope the Colorado listserver permits photo attachments. If it doesn't come through and you'd like a copy, let me know. I thought I'd give all of you a crack at it. I'll be trying to translate it as well. It's pretty clearly written in a Dhegiha dialect. It may be Kaw, but written down by someone using the Osage dictionary as a source (since there was no Kaw dictionary, Osage would be the closest source of lexicon in published form). It looks as though it has "TH" where Kaw would have [y] (both now and in the 1800's). You'll want to look at the photo rather than the curator's rendering of it, as someone has scratched in a small, raised "n" above a vowel to indicate nasalization. It's easily visible near the top. In other instances, a syllable-final is written for nasalization. Whoever wrote it pretty clearly had access to La Flesche's Osage Dictionary, as they write "real" as /xtsi/. Any ideas appreciated. Naturally, I'll share credit where credit is due when I send in my rendering. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Doerner, Rich (Secretary) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:15 AM To: Rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Translation Dear Mr. Robert Rankin: Ms. Virginia Wulfkuhle, Public Archeologist at Kansas, recommended that I write to you. I am the Museum Specialist in the Office of Senate Curator conducting research on a chair presented to Vice President Charles Curtis. I am interested in translating the following Native American Indian (Kaw ?) word(s) that appear on a circular medallion in the center of the backrest on the carved walnut chair. The letters may be out of order. I have enclosed a digital image of the medallion for your translation.. KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN In addition to the above, the chair is also inscribed "From the Original Curtis Boys and Matthew Quay Glaser". I am reading numerous books on Curtis, reviewing New York Times articles, and conducting research at the Library of Congress to learn more about them. THANK YOU in advance for any help you may be able to provide. Richard Doerner Museum Specialist Office of the Senate Curator Room S-411, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510-7102 <> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jpg chair.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 123582 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jul 29 23:07:10 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:07:10 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D165B64@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: o'kas^e iNke' xtsi mathiN' is clearly: go forth supremely untroubled All looks like Osage except the n in mani (OS maN thiN') I'll have to work a little on ko'on that iha. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:50 PM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. I have received the appended request from one of the curators for the U.S. Senate to translate an inscription he believes to be in the Kaw language. It includes a photograph of the inscription, which is on a chair presented to Charles Curtis when he was Vice President of the United States from 1929-1933. Curtis was part Kaw. I hope the Colorado listserver permits photo attachments. If it doesn't come through and you'd like a copy, let me know. I thought I'd give all of you a crack at it. I'll be trying to translate it as well. It's pretty clearly written in a Dhegiha dialect. It may be Kaw, but written down by someone using the Osage dictionary as a source (since there was no Kaw dictionary, Osage would be the closest source of lexicon in published form). It looks as though it has "TH" where Kaw would have [y] (both now and in the 1800's). You'll want to look at the photo rather than the curator's rendering of it, as someone has scratched in a small, raised "n" above a vowel to indicate nasalization. It's easily visible near the top. In other instances, a syllable-final is written for nasalization. Whoever wrote it pretty clearly had access to La Flesche's Osage Dictionary, as they write "real" as /xtsi/. Any ideas appreciated. Naturally, I'll share credit where credit is due when I send in my rendering. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Doerner, Rich (Secretary) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:15 AM To: Rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Translation Dear Mr. Robert Rankin: Ms. Virginia Wulfkuhle, Public Archeologist at Kansas, recommended that I write to you. I am the Museum Specialist in the Office of Senate Curator conducting research on a chair presented to Vice President Charles Curtis. I am interested in translating the following Native American Indian (Kaw ?) word(s) that appear on a circular medallion in the center of the backrest on the carved walnut chair. The letters may be out of order. I have enclosed a digital image of the medallion for your translation.. KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN In addition to the above, the chair is also inscribed "From the Original Curtis Boys and Matthew Quay Glaser". I am reading numerous books on Curtis, reviewing New York Times articles, and conducting research at the Library of Congress to learn more about them. THANK YOU in advance for any help you may be able to provide. Richard Doerner Museum Specialist Office of the Senate Curator Room S-411, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510-7102 <> From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jul 29 23:31:04 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:31:04 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: Using the La Flesche dictionary, I'd parse it as follows: KO-THA = Os. ko'dha = friend (cf. L. khola') U-CA-SHE = Os. u'gashe = ailment, not well THI(n)-CE = Os. dhiN'ge = none (OP same) u'gashe dhiNge = well, healthy, no interruption to the enjoyment of good health XTSI = Os. xtsi = verily, very (intensifying particle, cf. OP =xti) MO-NI = Os. moNni = you walk (OP same) KO(n)-ON-THA = Os., OP oNgoN'dha = we want (The oN-, 'we', affixed pronoun appears internally here, rather than in front. Is this normal for Kaw?) I = OP =i, a pluralizer for the preceding 'we' in this case. HA = OP =ha, an emphatic or declarative particle. Translation: Friend, we hope that you walk in very good health. Thanks for sharing! Now I'll check to see what Carolyn has to say! Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 29 23:47:37 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:47:37 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: That's great, Carolyn! You're ahead of me on this by a long way. I was thinking that "ko'on tha-" might be 'want, wish' with a space inserted (for all I know La Flesche may write it with the space sometimes -- since it's clearly two morphemes. "Mani" for 'walk' is the proper form in Quapaw, and I suspect that between the two nasal vowels, the "th" can optionally be an "n" in other dialects too. But Kaw definitely has a [y] here. Is there a Curtis family among the Osages by any chance? Bob -----Original Message----- From: Carolyn Quintero [mailto:cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:07 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. o'kas^e iNke' xtsi mathiN' is clearly: go forth supremely untroubled All looks like Osage except the n in mani (OS maN thiN') I'll have to work a little on ko'on that iha. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:50 PM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. I have received the appended request from one of the curators for the U.S. Senate to translate an inscription he believes to be in the Kaw language. It includes a photograph of the inscription, which is on a chair presented to Charles Curtis when he was Vice President of the United States from 1929-1933. Curtis was part Kaw. I hope the Colorado listserver permits photo attachments. If it doesn't come through and you'd like a copy, let me know. I thought I'd give all of you a crack at it. I'll be trying to translate it as well. It's pretty clearly written in a Dhegiha dialect. It may be Kaw, but written down by someone using the Osage dictionary as a source (since there was no Kaw dictionary, Osage would be the closest source of lexicon in published form). It looks as though it has "TH" where Kaw would have [y] (both now and in the 1800's). You'll want to look at the photo rather than the curator's rendering of it, as someone has scratched in a small, raised "n" above a vowel to indicate nasalization. It's easily visible near the top. In other instances, a syllable-final is written for nasalization. Whoever wrote it pretty clearly had access to La Flesche's Osage Dictionary, as they write "real" as /xtsi/. Any ideas appreciated. Naturally, I'll share credit where credit is due when I send in my rendering. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Doerner, Rich (Secretary) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:15 AM To: Rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Translation Dear Mr. Robert Rankin: Ms. Virginia Wulfkuhle, Public Archeologist at Kansas, recommended that I write to you. I am the Museum Specialist in the Office of Senate Curator conducting research on a chair presented to Vice President Charles Curtis. I am interested in translating the following Native American Indian (Kaw ?) word(s) that appear on a circular medallion in the center of the backrest on the carved walnut chair. The letters may be out of order. I have enclosed a digital image of the medallion for your translation.. KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN In addition to the above, the chair is also inscribed "From the Original Curtis Boys and Matthew Quay Glaser". I am reading numerous books on Curtis, reviewing New York Times articles, and conducting research at the Library of Congress to learn more about them. THANK YOU in advance for any help you may be able to provide. Richard Doerner Museum Specialist Office of the Senate Curator Room S-411, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510-7102 <> From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jul 29 23:55:12 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:55:12 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: Hey, this is great! I'm not going to have to do any work at all!! I think Rory's got most of the rest of it. "moni", then, is for /maN-h-niN/, with the -h- the infixed second person allomorph. It's certainly there in Kaw. I would guess it would be there in Osage as well. That explains why the /n/ instead of "th" for edh. /n/ always occurs with the 2nd person rather than edh. I want to look at the iha part a little more closely, but Rory and Carolyn together have broken the code. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:31 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Using the La Flesche dictionary, I'd parse it as follows: KO-THA = Os. ko'dha = friend (cf. L. khola') U-CA-SHE = Os. u'gashe = ailment, not well THI(n)-CE = Os. dhiN'ge = none (OP same) u'gashe dhiNge = well, healthy, no interruption to the enjoyment of good health XTSI = Os. xtsi = verily, very (intensifying particle, cf. OP =xti) MO-NI = Os. moNni = you walk (OP same) KO(n)-ON-THA = Os., OP oNgoN'dha = we want (The oN-, 'we', affixed pronoun appears internally here, rather than in front. Is this normal for Kaw?) I = OP =i, a pluralizer for the preceding 'we' in this case. HA = OP =ha, an emphatic or declarative particle. Translation: Friend, we hope that you walk in very good health. Thanks for sharing! Now I'll check to see what Carolyn has to say! Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jul 29 23:58:01 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:58:01 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: > o'kas^e iNke' xtsi mathiN' is clearly: > go forth supremely untroubled > > All looks like Osage except the n in mani (OS maN thiN') > > I'll have to work a little on ko'on that iha. > Carolyn Wow! That is a bit different from the forms in the Osage Dictionary! Come to think of it, the whole thing does look suspiciously like an eclectic mixture of Osage and OP, with perhaps something else thrown in as well. Also, the time the chair was given to Curtis coincides very closely with the time the dictionary was published. I wonder if Francis La Flesche was not involved in redacting that inscription? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 01:11:27 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:11:27 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: > Also, the time the chair was given to Curtis coincides very closely with the time the dictionary was published. I wonder if Francis La Flesche was not involved in redacting that inscription? Good thought. I wonder. It never bothered La Flesche to mix languages (OS and OP) in the OS dictionary. I don't suppose it would have bothered him to give the Osage for an inscription he was asked to provide in Kaw. That's certainly worth pursuing. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 03:03:40 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:03:40 -0500 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. Message-ID: >> Also, the time the chair >> was given to Curtis coincides very closely with the time the >> dictionary was published. I wonder if Francis La Flesche >> was not involved in redacting that inscription? > Good thought. I wonder. It never bothered La Flesche to mix languages (OS > and OP) in the OS dictionary. I don't suppose it would have bothered him to > give the Osage for an inscription he was asked to provide in Kaw. That's > certainly worth pursuing. > > Bob So we have an Omaha linguist who publishes an Osage dictionary under a U.S. Vice President who is part Kaw. And wasn't there an oil boom that made the Osages notably wealthy around this time? It makes me think there may have been a pan-Dhegihan movement in this period. These languages are close enough to be arguably dialects of each other. Suppose La Flesche was actually vacillating between writing a dictionary of Osage (were the Osages supporting his work?) and writing a general Dhegihan dictionary. This might be like us trying to write a dictionary of "Southern". We would get the words and expressions that were special to our subject language, as well as some of the phonology, but we would probably keep our standard English spelling for most of the common words, even though the pronunciation was different. If La Flesche was approaching Osage, and perhaps Kaw, in this way, from a standard Dhegihan orthography based on Omaha, it might explain some of his apparent tendency to mix languages. In this case, he should have tended to keep the Omaha version of spelling where Omaha had the full phoneme. Thus, Os. or Kaw /o/ would come out as OP /u/, and Os. /-/ and Kaw /y/ would come out as OP /dh/. But if the other language seemed to throw in an extra phoneme, as with the affricativization of dental stops, this would be prominent enough to record; thus Os. /xtsi/ rather than OP /xti/. Words and expressions, however, should always be in the target language. Thus, /kodha/ and /okas^e/, which to my knowledge don't exist in OP, would prove that the Osage (or Kaw?) dialect was intended. That would leave us with the /i=ha/ ending, which appears to be pure OP, either contradicting this rule, or else acceptable at that time in Osage or Kaw. Does Kaw have the words /koya/ and /okas^e/? And does it affricatize dental stops before [i], e.g. /xtsi/ rather than /xti/, as in Osage? And finally, how does it construct "we want", or "we hope"? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 06:20:09 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:20:09 -0600 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D165B64@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: OK, having read ahead ... I actually make it On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN Top: KO-THA U-GA-SHE THI^N-GE XTSI MO-NI Kkudha ugas^e dhiNge= xc^i maNniN Friend, ailment lacking very (you?) go "Go (or 'you went') in health." Bottom: KO^NON-THA IHA KkaN=aNdha=i=ha He threatened (charged) me. As Bob points out, the raised n's are missed in Doerner's transciption. I think all the C's are actually G's, too, from what I can make of the photo. He accidentally repeats the NI of the top part as IN in teh bottom part, too. Everybody else got the first one before I checked my mail this evening, but I think I have the last one. See LaFlesche 1933:89b k.oN-tha 'to attack, to charge upon an enemy, to raid, to threaten, to menace'. LaFlesche gives the active inflection, and shows that both stems kkaN and dha are inflected, e.g., akkaN=bdha 'I threatened him'. I assume that kkaN=aNdha is the first person patient form, though I don't think there's a parallel formation with gaN=dha 'to wish' (also with both stems inflected). I think there's a very good chance that the message was composed by LaFlesche, though I don't know what connection he had with Curtis, and I don't know what events in the life of Curtis (presumably) or circumstances between Curtis and (presumably) LaFlesche the message may refer to. It seems that somebody threatened Curtis (presumably) and that the presenter wishes him well. As far as the language, it is essentially Omaha-Ponca once you see the G's instead of C's. The orthography isn't quite the usual one for LaFlesche, assuming it's him, but he wasn't always consistant on raised n vs. n-in-line (KO^N-ON-THA), and I suspect that xtsi for OP xti ~ xc^i isn't unreasonable for someone who's recently been working on Osage. The use of th for *dh instead of y or d shows it's not Kaw or Quapaw, though there's no evidence that LaFlesche in particular worked with either language (though he does lists some names from both in The Omaha Tribe). The use of =i=ha PROXIMATE-DECLARATIVE (male) (in archaic form) pretty well shows it's Omaha-Ponca. The -xtsi is odd, but not impossible. He is using o in ko-tha (kkudha) 'friend', but he's back to u- in ugashe (ugas^e). Mo-ni could represent either maNdhiN or maNniN, which in OP terms would be the third person (or imperative, though there's no imperative particle) in the case of maNdhiN, or it would be the second person maNniN < maNhniN < maNs^niN. He always wrote aN (~ oN) as oN, except when he wrote uN (u apparently schwa) occasionally. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 06:55:25 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:55:25 -0600 Subject: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > So we have an Omaha linguist who publishes an Osage dictionary > under a U.S. Vice President who is part Kaw. And wasn't there > an oil boom that made the Osages notably wealthy around this time? Yes, though I think it began well before 1929. LaFlesche did his fieldwork 1910-1923. > It makes me think there may have been a pan-Dhegihan movement > in this period. That might be going a bit far. It would be interesting to know how much each of the groups knew of the others at which periods, however. > These languages are close enough to be arguably dialects of each > other. They different more among themselves than Dakotan, I think, though I don't know if anyone's set out to compare them consistantly (other than phonologically). There are some rather major, but superficial differences in the inflection of dh-stems, and there are differences in the sets of articles and their inflectional patterns. The subordinating conjunctions and sentence final and initial particles seem to differ strongly from one dialect to another. The dative is differently formed in OP vs. Os/Ks. > Suppose La Flesche was actually vacillating between writing a > dictionary of Osage (were the Osages supporting his work?) and writing > a general Dhegihan dictionary. I have the impression he vacillated between writing a dictionary of OSage and a dictionary of Omaha-Ponca. There are persistant reports in the Omaha references that he was working on an Omaha dictionary, and I assume these refer to the Osage Dictionary. He clearly felt able to work with both languages on similar terms, though a fiar amount of special knowledge is needed to map even a "purified" version of his vision of Osage to Omaha and vice versa. Bu purified I mean with plural/proximate marking and dh-stem inflections corrected, since he does those correctly in textual contexts, if not (mostly) in the dictionary. > This might be like us trying to write a dictionary of "Southern". We > would get the words and expressions that were special to our subject > language, as well as some of the phonology, but we would probably keep > our standard English spelling for most of the common words, even > though the pronunciation was different. People attempt this sort of thing all the time, of coruse, though usually they produce texts rather than dictionaries. LaFlesche definitely has a standardizing orthography for Omaha and Osage, and yet he does differ in his usage for the two languages, even if we eliminate some vacilation on forms and take note of the different periods in his usage. In regard to the sample at hand, the Osage influence is limited to xtsi for xc^i ~ xti and kotha for kkudha. However, everything else here is within the range of his Osage spelling, and even the two probably Omaha inflected and suffixed verb forms show no more Omaha influence than his Osage dictionary. So, I think it is safe to think that he had an idea that the two languages were essentially similar and had a tendency to focus on pronunciation shibboleths like ts or ksh or d /t/ for R rather than on (for us) equally obvious morphological differences. > In this case, he should have tended to keep the Omaha version of > spelling where Omaha had the full phoneme. Thus, Os. or Kaw /o/ > would come out as OP /u/, and Os. /-/ and Kaw /y/ would come out > as OP /dh/. Well, here Osage has the fuller set of distinctions and should carry the day. Unfortunately, he generally writes u and i where Osage has /o/ and /u/ vs. /i/. He does sometimes write o for /o/, but not nearly as often as /u/, and he does sometimes write iu for /u/, but not as often as /i/. So he had only a marginal appreciation of the differences in the vowel systems. He writes th, gth, bth, xth as in Omaha-Ponca where Osage has dh, l ~ dl ~ gl, br, l ~ hl. I suspect the usage in his day was in the more conservative range, but here he goes with the Omaha versions - the underlying forms in essence, while for pH and kH he writes p ~ psh and k ~ ksh (sometimes kch). In essence he tends to prefer to overdifferentiate and phoneticize, except with s ~ z (both c-cedilla) and x ~ gh (both x), and (mostly) with the vowels, where he takes the OP merging approach for the most part. JEK From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 12:59:20 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:59:20 -0500 Subject: a wish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I believe that rather than the "charge" interpretation based on LF 'menace, charge against', another reading is possible. In instances where a doubly inflecting verb such as 'menace' is shown to be, if there is only one subject pronominal, it will be the left one, not the right one. And if there is only one object pronominal in such a verb, it will be the left one. Therefore this internal ON as either A1p or P1s does not seem at all likely. What about the KO(n) being LF's 'to wish or to desire'? This usage was not present in the Osage I collected but it appears LF32:88. We could assume that it is also a noun 'a wish'. If i, like (a)pi in OS, will cause the final e of *the* to be a, then we get the ON-THA. Does that happen? Then that leaves us with ON-THA-IHA, and the only thing I can make of this is either a) oN'the 'toss out, discard' (giving: a wish we/he threw away?) or b) aNthe 'he/they made me' with *the* as the causative and aN '1s patient', giving 'they made me wish'??? In Modern Osage these two alternatives would be(without the *ha* which is not used at least nowadays) as follows: a') oN'thape or b') aN'thape I don't believe b) could be construed as 'they made me the wish' because that would involve a different 'make', probably *kaaghe*. Carolyn ' -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:20 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Re: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. OK, having read ahead ... I actually make it On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN Top: KO-THA U-GA-SHE THI^N-GE XTSI MO-NI Kkudha ugas^e dhiNge= xc^i maNniN Friend, ailment lacking very (you?) go "Go (or 'you went') in health." Bottom: KO^NON-THA IHA KkaN=aNdha=i=ha He threatened (charged) me. As Bob points out, the raised n's are missed in Doerner's transciption. I think all the C's are actually G's, too, from what I can make of the photo. He accidentally repeats the NI of the top part as IN in teh bottom part, too. Everybody else got the first one before I checked my mail this evening, but I think I have the last one. See LaFlesche 1933:89b k.oN-tha 'to attack, to charge upon an enemy, to raid, to threaten, to menace'. LaFlesche gives the active inflection, and shows that both stems kkaN and dha are inflected, e.g., akkaN=bdha 'I threatened him'. I assume that kkaN=aNdha is the first person patient form, though I don't think there's a parallel formation with gaN=dha 'to wish' (also with both stems inflected). I think there's a very good chance that the message was composed by LaFlesche, though I don't know what connection he had with Curtis, and I don't know what events in the life of Curtis (presumably) or circumstances between Curtis and (presumably) LaFlesche the message may refer to. It seems that somebody threatened Curtis (presumably) and that the presenter wishes him well. As far as the language, it is essentially Omaha-Ponca once you see the G's instead of C's. The orthography isn't quite the usual one for LaFlesche, assuming it's him, but he wasn't always consistant on raised n vs. n-in-line (KO^N-ON-THA), and I suspect that xtsi for OP xti ~ xc^i isn't unreasonable for someone who's recently been working on Osage. The use of th for *dh instead of y or d shows it's not Kaw or Quapaw, though there's no evidence that LaFlesche in particular worked with either language (though he does lists some names from both in The Omaha Tribe). The use of =i=ha PROXIMATE-DECLARATIVE (male) (in archaic form) pretty well shows it's Omaha-Ponca. The -xtsi is odd, but not impossible. He is using o in ko-tha (kkudha) 'friend', but he's back to u- in ugashe (ugas^e). Mo-ni could represent either maNdhiN or maNniN, which in OP terms would be the third person (or imperative, though there's no imperative particle) in the case of maNdhiN, or it would be the second person maNniN < maNhniN < maNs^niN. He always wrote aN (~ oN) as oN, except when he wrote uN (u apparently schwa) occasionally. JEK From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jul 30 13:08:52 2003 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:08:52 -0500 Subject: Chair Message-ID: Hi gang: Part of the inscription must be Curtis's Indian name. I know if I was presenting a gift like a chair i would put his Indian name on it. LouieG From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 15:01:07 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:01:07 -0600 Subject: Chair In-Reply-To: <002101c3569b$b94b5f30$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Louis Garcia wrote: > Part of the inscription must be Curtis's Indian name. I know if I was > presenting a gift like a chair i would put his Indian name on it. That's an excellent suggestion, though in names =i is usually in the older form =bi. The stock example I remember is Is^kada=bi 'Juggler' (expert at sleight of hand, e.g., the handgame and its earlier predecessors) > s^kade 'to play', cf. Dakotan s^kata. Also, the name wouldn't get the declarative. Otherwise, 'charger' or 'threatener' would be an excellent name. In Dakotan, too, I think, right? I suppose it might be a verbal rendition of the sense of his name. Dhegiha cultures - or Omaha culture, anyway - are somewhat shy about sharing names, though I think it's a matter of customary usages rather than a question of names being secret. My understanding is that it's not (or it wasn't) considered necessary to tell one's name to someone in order to deal with them. I'm always flattered if someone tells me their name, and I don't generally ask. === Something I neglected to mention is that I'm pretty sure that whoever composed the message was a native speaker, at least of some Siouan language. They've got the syntax down right. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 15:04:38 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:04:38 -0600 Subject: a wish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > I believe that rather than the "charge" interpretation based on LF 'menace, > charge against', another reading is possible. In instances where a doubly > inflecting verb such as 'menace' is shown to be, if there is only one > subject pronominal, it will be the left one, not the right one. And if there > is only one object pronominal in such a verb, it will be the left one. > Therefore this internal ON as either A1p or P1s does not seem at all likely. As far as I know this principle is correct with respect to agent pronominals in verbs like ...aN=...dha 'to discard' and ...gaN=...dha 'to want'. That is, the inclusive is aNgaNdha, though as Bob has observed in the past, it might be difficult to know if it were aNgaN=aNdha, especially if we're a bit slack about recognizing long vowels. I'll look into this further. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 15:49:47 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:49:47 -0500 Subject: Chair Message-ID: This is an interesting suggestion. It would have to be the bottom line of the inscription, as I think we've nailed the top line. If Curtis had an Indian name (his Kaw blood quantum was pretty small), then "Charger" or something like that could easily be it. If this is not his name, then I'm a little unhappy with the "charge, menace" translation. We shouldn't forget that, where you have a G in Omaha and Ponca, you have a K in Osage. I've been operating under the assumption that the two could be mixed orthographically if someone conversant with Omaha-Ponca were given an Osage utterance and asked to write it. it's possible that the Curtis family approached someone to provide a proper inscription for the chair and were directed to Francis Laflesche. The Kaw for 'we want it' is /oNgoNyabe/. I'd have to find it in the recordings to determine whether the second /oN/ is long or short, but the inclusive/plural pronominal is definitely prefixed at least. So I'm a little uneasy with a 'threatened' translation unless it can be shown to relate to something specific in the history of Curtis's vice presidency or unless we can take it as a proper name. I wonder if it could possibly mean 'charge' in the sense of 'commission'? And I wonder if the apostrophe between the vowels could be the glottal articulation that sometimes "breaks" long vowels with falling pitch? All in all, I think you guys are doing a terrific job. We'll have quite a bit to tell this researcher. I don't know if he is an employee of the U.S. Senate or someone doing historical research under their auspices. Bob >Hi gang: Part of the inscription must be Curtis's Indian name. I know if I was presenting a gift like a chair i would put his Indian name on it. LouieG From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 16:07:43 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:07:43 -0600 Subject: Chair In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164D04@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > If Curtis had an Indian name (his Kaw blood quantum was pretty small), then > "Charger" or something like that could easily be it. If this is not his > name, then I'm a little unhappy with the "charge, menace" translation. As a name a problem is having oN -me' embedded in it. I suppose koN on tha i ha might possibly be 'He is a Kaw', though LaFlesche doesn't usually write th for s. He does write c-cedilla "pronounced like th in [thin?]" or something like that. i don't recall his actual example. Here it would be voiced. OP would have kkaNze, or in the third person kkaNza=i. The author does contrast k (=kk in 'friend') and g. He isn't writing k for the simple stop. JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 17:10:13 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:10:13 -0500 Subject: a wish? Message-ID: I'd agree with Carolyn on this. I did see, and briefly considered, the "attack" interpretation of KO(n)ONTHA, but the translation "Friend, you walk in very good health. He attacked me." seems a little schizophrenic for a chair dedicated to a Vice President (unless we go with Louis' suggestion that this last clause might be Curtis' Indian name). In OP at least, there seems to be a gradient series of "desire" expressions, all based on the two elements *koN, "wish", and *dha or *edha, meaning "think". (I believe John and maybe Bob had a good historical linguistic discussion of the "think" term a few months ago; I'm winging it from memory here, and hope they will correct me if I'm in error.) In the I-form, the series comes out as follows: kkoN'bdha = kkoN bdha = I want (in a somewhat demanding or intentional way) kkoNbdhe'goN = kkoN bdha-e'goN = I would like (in a softened, undemanding way) kkoN ebdhe'goN = kkoN e bdha-e'goN = I wish (in a magical or irrealis sort of way; e.g. that this blood clot would become a boy) The /e'goN/ in the latter two expressions is an adverb meaning 'sorta', as in "I sorta think". This has become standard in OP, but is not originally an essential part of it. The /e/ in the last expression may be the generic demonstrative "that", as in: "X, that I think". For the first form, "want", the full subject paradigm is: goN'dha = s/he wants kkoN'bdha = I want s^koN'hna = you want oNgoN'dha = we want Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. I think that a couple of processes may be going on here. Historically, we are getting a merging of two words into one: "wish-think" => "want". The more completely merged form tends to take on a somewhat forceful tone of demand, which is not wanted in all contexts. One way out is to soften it by adding a "sorta" adverb at the end: "I sorta want it" would mean "I would like to have it", not "I demand to have it". The other is to carefully preserve the distinction between the original two roots: "(I) wish, I think" would really mean "I wish", keeping clear that there is no real-world expectation of the wish being fulfilled. If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). If this hypothesis is valid, then the semantic difference between /oNgoN'dha/ and /goN' oNdha/ would be: Friend, we want you to walk in good health (and darned well expect it of you!) vs. Friend, we wish for you to walk in good health (but admittedly have no influence over the matter.) Carolyn wrote: > If i, like (a)pi in OS, will cause the final e of *the* to be a, then we get > the ON-THA. Does that happen? Yes, =i causes a-grade ablaut. So if the root is in fact /dhe/, then we would get oNdha=i, as you suggest. And if the root is /dha/, as I propose above, then we get the same thing. Rory "Carolyn Quintero" et> cc: Sent by: Subject: a wish? owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/30/2003 07:59 AM Please respond to siouan I believe that rather than the "charge" interpretation based on LF 'menace, charge against', another reading is possible. In instances where a doubly inflecting verb such as 'menace' is shown to be, if there is only one subject pronominal, it will be the left one, not the right one. And if there is only one object pronominal in such a verb, it will be the left one. Therefore this internal ON as either A1p or P1s does not seem at all likely. What about the KO(n) being LF's 'to wish or to desire'? This usage was not present in the Osage I collected but it appears LF32:88. We could assume that it is also a noun 'a wish'. If i, like (a)pi in OS, will cause the final e of *the* to be a, then we get the ON-THA. Does that happen? Then that leaves us with ON-THA-IHA, and the only thing I can make of this is either a) oN'the 'toss out, discard' (giving: a wish we/he threw away?) or b) aNthe 'he/they made me' with *the* as the causative and aN '1s patient', giving 'they made me wish'??? In Modern Osage these two alternatives would be(without the *ha* which is not used at least nowadays) as follows: a') oN'thape or b') aN'thape I don't believe b) could be construed as 'they made me the wish' because that would involve a different 'make', probably *kaaghe*. Carolyn ' -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:20 AM To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu' Subject: Re: Attn. Dhegiha specialists. OK, having read ahead ... I actually make it On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > KO-THA-U-CA-SHE / THI-CE-XTSI MO-NI / KO-ON-THAIHA-IN Top: KO-THA U-GA-SHE THI^N-GE XTSI MO-NI Kkudha ugas^e dhiNge= xc^i maNniN Friend, ailment lacking very (you?) go "Go (or 'you went') in health." Bottom: KO^NON-THA IHA KkaN=aNdha=i=ha He threatened (charged) me. As Bob points out, the raised n's are missed in Doerner's transciption. I think all the C's are actually G's, too, from what I can make of the photo. He accidentally repeats the NI of the top part as IN in teh bottom part, too. Everybody else got the first one before I checked my mail this evening, but I think I have the last one. See LaFlesche 1933:89b k.oN-tha 'to attack, to charge upon an enemy, to raid, to threaten, to menace'. LaFlesche gives the active inflection, and shows that both stems kkaN and dha are inflected, e.g., akkaN=bdha 'I threatened him'. I assume that kkaN=aNdha is the first person patient form, though I don't think there's a parallel formation with gaN=dha 'to wish' (also with both stems inflected). I think there's a very good chance that the message was composed by LaFlesche, though I don't know what connection he had with Curtis, and I don't know what events in the life of Curtis (presumably) or circumstances between Curtis and (presumably) LaFlesche the message may refer to. It seems that somebody threatened Curtis (presumably) and that the presenter wishes him well. As far as the language, it is essentially Omaha-Ponca once you see the G's instead of C's. The orthography isn't quite the usual one for LaFlesche, assuming it's him, but he wasn't always consistant on raised n vs. n-in-line (KO^N-ON-THA), and I suspect that xtsi for OP xti ~ xc^i isn't unreasonable for someone who's recently been working on Osage. The use of th for *dh instead of y or d shows it's not Kaw or Quapaw, though there's no evidence that LaFlesche in particular worked with either language (though he does lists some names from both in The Omaha Tribe). The use of =i=ha PROXIMATE-DECLARATIVE (male) (in archaic form) pretty well shows it's Omaha-Ponca. The -xtsi is odd, but not impossible. He is using o in ko-tha (kkudha) 'friend', but he's back to u- in ugashe (ugas^e). Mo-ni could represent either maNdhiN or maNniN, which in OP terms would be the third person (or imperative, though there's no imperative particle) in the case of maNdhiN, or it would be the second person maNniN < maNhniN < maNs^niN. He always wrote aN (~ oN) as oN, except when he wrote uN (u apparently schwa) occasionally. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jul 30 17:45:10 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:45:10 -0600 Subject: a wish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'd agree with Carolyn on this. I did see, and briefly considered, > the "attack" interpretation of KO(n)ONTHA, but the translation > "Friend, you walk in very good health. He attacked me." seems a little > schizophrenic for a chair dedicated to a Vice President (unless we go > with Louis' suggestion that this last clause might be Curtis' Indian > name). I interpreted it as 'He threatened me' (but nevertheless) 'You should go in health'. > Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it > appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would > like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last > form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is > exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person. There doesn't seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts. Cognates of this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g, not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that sound). > If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form > should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. > But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", > then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us > /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that - the morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 19:05:15 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:05:15 -0500 Subject: a wish? Message-ID: >> Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it >> appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would >> like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last >> form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is >> exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. > I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person. There doesn't > seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts. Cognates of > this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g, > not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that > sound). I agree. That's why I decided to use /koN/ rather than /kkoN/ above. In OP, *koN should come out /goN/, and in Os. it should be /koN/. The inscription seems to be some mix of OP and Os. orthography, at least, and I think the Os. version got used here. In the La Flesche dictionary of Osage, 'g' is used for the unmarked "want" term "goN'tha", while a dotted 'k' is used for the I-form "koNbtha", as well as the word "koN", "to wish or to desire", the word "koN", "root" or "vein" (which is /kkoN/ in OP), and the word "koN'tha", "attack/charge/raid/ threaten". I don't think we can rely on either La Flesche or the redactor of the chair inscription to consistently distinguish *k from *hk. >> If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form >> should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. >> But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", >> then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us >> /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). > I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that - the > morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis. What do you find implausible about it? We have two roots, *koN, meaning "wish" and *(e)dha (?) meaning "think". These are combined as *koN'dha to form the common word "want". Both roots are inflected with the I and you affixed pronouns. The 'we' affixed pronoun attaches only to the front, at least where "want" is the meaning. However, it must have attached to *(e)dha at least historically, when the latter was an independent verb. Wouldn't the result have been something like *oNdha? In OP, we have the common word /goN'dha/, meaning "want", but we also have a couple of other related terms, at least in the first person singular, and at least in the 19th century, that mean something a little different. One of these is /kkoN' ebdhe'goN/, "I wish I think", meaning "I wish". Do we have an attested we-form of this? If not, how would you construct it? One other question: Are the words /kudha/, "friend", and /ugas^e/, "ailment", attested for OP? Perhaps they are in the Dorsey dictionary; they are not in Stabler and Swetland, and I don't remember ever running across them in Dorsey, or hearing them from our speakers. Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 19:48:43 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:48:43 -0500 Subject: Our wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably, e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe. Then 1p aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i. So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the wish'. Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately: "Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!" ( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. ) Peacefully, Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:05 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: a wish? >> Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it >> appears only in front. I don't know the non-I forms of the "would >> like" and "wish" expressions. It's notable, though, that the last >> form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is >> exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP. > I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person. There doesn't > seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts. Cognates of > this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g, > not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that > sound). I agree. That's why I decided to use /koN/ rather than /kkoN/ above. In OP, *koN should come out /goN/, and in Os. it should be /koN/. The inscription seems to be some mix of OP and Os. orthography, at least, and I think the Os. version got used here. In the La Flesche dictionary of Osage, 'g' is used for the unmarked "want" term "goN'tha", while a dotted 'k' is used for the I-form "koNbtha", as well as the word "koN", "to wish or to desire", the word "koN", "root" or "vein" (which is /kkoN/ in OP), and the word "koN'tha", "attack/charge/raid/ threaten". I don't think we can rely on either La Flesche or the redactor of the chair inscription to consistently distinguish *k from *hk. >> If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form >> should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/. >> But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think", >> then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us >> /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.). > I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that - the > morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis. What do you find implausible about it? We have two roots, *koN, meaning "wish" and *(e)dha (?) meaning "think". These are combined as *koN'dha to form the common word "want". Both roots are inflected with the I and you affixed pronouns. The 'we' affixed pronoun attaches only to the front, at least where "want" is the meaning. However, it must have attached to *(e)dha at least historically, when the latter was an independent verb. Wouldn't the result have been something like *oNdha? In OP, we have the common word /goN'dha/, meaning "want", but we also have a couple of other related terms, at least in the first person singular, and at least in the 19th century, that mean something a little different. One of these is /kkoN' ebdhe'goN/, "I wish I think", meaning "I wish". Do we have an attested we-form of this? If not, how would you construct it? One other question: Are the words /kudha/, "friend", and /ugas^e/, "ailment", attested for OP? Perhaps they are in the Dorsey dictionary; they are not in Stabler and Swetland, and I don't remember ever running across them in Dorsey, or hearing them from our speakers. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 20:31:15 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:31:15 -0500 Subject: Curtis biography Message-ID: Acting on Louis Garcia's idea, I did a little internet research on Curtis in order to check out his Kaw background. I didn't locate his Indian name, but his early childhood makes it pretty clear that he probably had one. As you can see from the following, lifted from an article in the Topeka Capital Journal, he lived on the reservation in Kansas and embraced their way of life. There supposedly more at vpcharlescurtis.net. I'll look it over. Bob *************************************************** >>From the Cap Journal, March 2003: "His father was Oren Curtis, who was also known as Captain Jack, and his mother was Ellen Pappan. Curtis gets his Indian heritage from his mother, who was part Kansa, Osage and Potawatomi Indian and part French. Charles Curtis, who was nicknamed Charley, was baptized at the Catholic church in St. Marys, according to the Web site. Oren Curtis and Ellen Pappan later had a daughter, Elizabeth. Oren Curtis had a daughter with another woman, Charles Curtis' half-sister Dolly. Ellen Pappan is the great-great-granddaughter of Osage Chief Powhuska. Powhuska's daughter married White Plume, an Osage who was appointed chief of the Kansa Indians. White Plume's daughter, Wy-He-See, married Louis Gonville, and they had a daughter Julie. Julie Gonville married Louis Pappan, the owner of Pappan's Ferry. They were Ellen's parents. As a boy, Charles Curtis learned how to ride ponies under the watchful eye of his mother. Andrews said by the time Curtis was 3, he could ride without any help. Also, when he was 3, Ellen Pappan died of black fever. Oren Curtis left his family to fight in the Civil War, so Charles and Elizabeth went to live with Oren's parents, William and Permelia Curtis, in Eugene, the original name for North Topeka. But Curtis didn't stay with his grandparents very long. He returned to the home of his mother's parents, Louis Pappan and Julie Gonville, on the Kansa reservation near Council Grove, where he lived from 1866 to 1869. In Ewy's paper, Curtis is quoted as saying, "Until I was 8 I lived there, happy and contented, playing, riding horses and learning very little." Although he took classes at a mission school, Curtis preferred riding and playing to school work. "As a boy, Curtis always thought of himself as an Indian," Ewy wrote. Curtis returned to Topeka under "heroic circumstances," Ewy wrote. Cheyenne had raided the Kansa Indians, and Curtis left for Topeka to get help in the skirmish. "I ran and walked for miles, summoning help for the besieged tribe," Curtis is quoted as saying in Ewy's article. "I at last got to Topeka, where relatives of my father lived, and I decided to stay with them for a while." Curtis tried to return to his old life in 1874, when the Kansa were being moved to the Oklahoma territory. "The longing for the old life took possession of me," Curtis said in Ewy's paper. "I wanted to go back to my customs of my childhood, and so I joined the tribe once more." But fate intervened when his Grandmother Pappan had a talk with Charles and urged him to go back to Topeka to complete his education." From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Wed Jul 30 20:38:56 2003 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:38:56 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Is conference planning far enough along that we could have a rough outline of the schedule? It would be helpful for travel planning to know if the conference will take the full three days or will start Thursday evening and end Saturday morning or what. The "chair" discussion was fun -- though I didn't contribute I enjoyed reading it. You guys seemed to have the problem pretty well solved by the time I checked my email... From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 20:56:19 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:56:19 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: I have told John Koontz I'll pick him up at the Lansing airport where he is arriving August 6 at 6:58 p.m. If anyone else is flying in at around that time, I'd be happy to pick them up too and drive them to the motel in East Lansing. Please let me know if you'll want a ride around 7 p.m. or shortly thereafter (we can wait around for a little while if there are other arrivals somewhat later). I too would like to know a little about what the schedule looks like. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC [mailto:CaRudin1 at wsc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:39 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Is conference planning far enough along that we could have a rough outline of the schedule? It would be helpful for travel planning to know if the conference will take the full three days or will start Thursday evening and end Saturday morning or what. The "chair" discussion was fun -- though I didn't contribute I enjoyed reading it. You guys seemed to have the problem pretty well solved by the time I checked my email... From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Wed Jul 30 21:04:55 2003 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:04:55 +0100 Subject: on Charles Curtis Message-ID: I recall looking at a biography of CC in about 1999, seeing the extent to which his Indian connections had affected his life, and with especial interest in the way he reacted to having Kaw heritage. I forget the author of the book I read, but said author stated (on what evidence I have no idea) that CC had learned at least the rudiments of French and Kaw as a child. I wonder if he recalled any as an adult. He seems to have erased the Catholic part of his Indian past, as in later life we has (I think) a Methodist. Anthony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 20:58:11 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:58:11 -0500 Subject: Our wish Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably, > e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as > the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe. You're right, Carolyn! I was apparently mistaken when I was reconstructing it as *(e)dha. In fact, it's in the La Flesche dictionary as /e'dhe/, just as you say. It has the I- and you- forms listed, but not the we- form. The dictionary translates it as "think". What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can shed light on this. > Then 1p aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since > modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i. Yes! > So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the > wish'. I agree. > Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately: > "Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!" > ( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. ) Just one quibble here. As Bob and I argued last night, the MO-NI is for /moN-hniN/, "you walk". So it should read: Friend, we make the wish that you walk in peace/good health, etc. (The great thing about Siouan is that you're not restricted to a single finite verb per clause!) > Peacefully, > Carolyn Good advice in any case! Rory From wablenica at mail.ru Wed Jul 30 21:28:26 2003 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:28:26 +0400 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164D05@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hello everybody, I wonder whether L./D. ta'ku-yA, to have/use smt for/as smt, and taku'-yA, to have smb as some/which? relative are etymologically different words? At least Ella Deloria considered taku'yA a derivative from ta'ku, what/something. Thank you, Constantine From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 21:40:59 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:40:59 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory wrote: Just one quibble here. As Bob and I argued last night, the MO-NI is for /moN-hniN/, "you walk". So it should read: Friend, we make the wish that you walk in peace/good health, etc. CQ: Yes, I like this rendering in English. MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in peace". But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Any more chairs around? This was fun. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:58 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Our wish Carolyn wrote: > In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably, > e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as > the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe. You're right, Carolyn! I was apparently mistaken when I was reconstructing it as *(e)dha. In fact, it's in the La Flesche dictionary as /e'dhe/, just as you say. It has the I- and you- forms listed, but not the we- form. The dictionary translates it as "think". What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can shed light on this. > Then 1p aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since > modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i. Yes! > So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the > wish'. I agree. > Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately: > "Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!" > ( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. ) Just one quibble here. As Bob and I argued last night, the MO-NI is for /moN-hniN/, "you walk". So it should read: Friend, we make the wish that you walk in peace/good health, etc. (The great thing about Siouan is that you're not restricted to a single finite verb per clause!) > Peacefully, > Carolyn Good advice in any case! Rory From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jul 30 21:42:18 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:42:18 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Hi everyone, I too would like to know what the schedule will look like. I only received a few (four) abstracts. I'm hoping we can do better than that. Could all those interested in presenting a paper send me a title (an abstract is optional but would be appreciated). In addition, could those attending but not presenting a paper let me know, so that we know about how many to expect. I would like to urge everyone to present something - remember we are a rather informal lot so it doesn't need to be polished. In addition, anyone interested in getting together on Thursday for a mini-workshop on syntax let me know so we can find someplace (other than the local coffee shop) to have it. Thanks, I look forward to hearing from MANY people. Best wishes, John Boyle From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 22:01:24 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:01:24 -0500 Subject: A bit more Curtis biog. Message-ID: This is from a different web article. It confirms that Curtis learned to speak Kaw in his youth. The Kaw pow wow is this coming weekend. I'll try to talk to the Pappans if any come this year and try to find out what Curtis's Indian name was. It is probably on the tribal role from around 1860 too if I can locate that. It's an interesting question, whether or not it is on the inscription. The chair is said to have been given by "the real Curtis boys." These may refer to relatives of his or perhaps to the "court house gang" in Topeka where he was District Attorney during prohibition. Bob ************************************************ "Charles Curtis had the misfortune of being the Vice President during the Stock Market crash, and the economic down turn known as "The Great Depression". He was born in North Topeka in 1860, the great-great grandson of Kaw Indian Chief White Plume, who had given assistance to Lewis and Clark. His grandfather Louis Gonville, Chief White Plume's son in law, was French. Curtis life was dominated by his heritage and he learned to speak Kaw and French while growing up. When he was only three years old his mother died. It was the responsibility of the grandparents to raise Charles Curtis. At first he was in the custody of his Paternal grandparents but then his maternal grandparents, the Gonvilles, wanted to be sure he that they and young Charles kept their membership in the tribe in case of any future land settlements. Even though he was only 1/8th Kaw he lived on the Reservation. His knowledge of the Kaw language and his skill with a bow and arrow made him popular with the other boys. He became a tribal hero after running sixty miles to Topeka for help when the Cheyenne raided the reservation." From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jul 30 22:08:01 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:08:01 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 22:33:37 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:33:37 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: Really interesting that you'd get two reflexes of 2nd person, the first the ordinary conjugation, which erodes phonologically, and then another for 'raised 2nd person possessor.' -- if that's what it is. That's probably worthy of a paper for one of these "possessor raising" conferences. Analogical renewal or "layering", but for a slightly different category where you'd maybe expect /dhi-/ 'your' with regular verbs??? Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:08 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: any more chairs? Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jul 30 22:35:10 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:35:10 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: Or maybe it's a 'comitative'?? But that should have its own morphology too. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:08 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: any more chairs? Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 23:07:12 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:07:12 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory: Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Carolyn: Here, as elsewhere, LF is wrong about there being this n for second person in Osage verbs. He was surely filling in with his knowledge of Omaha. There are hundreds of problems in the LF dictionary, and quite a few have to do with the form given being Omaha. In fact forms like 2s sni and others that LF gives are hilarious to Osages. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:08 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: any more chairs? Carolyn wrote: > MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has > spread to the dh. One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech. If > someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative > (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could be > used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction). > I'd sort of lean to an imperative. Like "We make the wish: that you walk in > peace". > But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that right > for Kaw?). In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that! If we want > it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess. Ah! I hadn't realized that! I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary conjugates 2s as moN-ni. Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed to me a few months ago. She said that there was a distinction in asking about "having" something, as follows: KinoN'noNge aniN' a? Do you have (possess) a car? KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? Do you have (your) car (along with you)? I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've brought it up to the list before. Is it possible that there are actually two grades of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Rory From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 30 23:44:34 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:44:34 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: <2721911269.20030731012826@mail.ru> Message-ID: Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable. However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the vowel or syllable might be. I have long been suspicious on semantic grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to distinguish them. I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Wablenica wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I wonder whether L./D. > > ta'ku-yA, to have/use smt for/as smt, > and > taku'-yA, to have smb as some/which? relative > > are etymologically different words? > > At least Ella Deloria considered taku'yA a derivative from ta'ku, > what/something. > > Thank you, > > Constantine > From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jul 30 23:42:36 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:42:36 -0500 Subject: 2003 SACLC In-Reply-To: <57.1ff18d8a.2c4e653c@aol.com> Message-ID: > Are there any plans for an SACLC this year? If anyone has this >information, >please let me know? > > Thanks, Ted Grimm Hi Ted, Will you be attending and presenting a paper this year? i hope so. Please let me know. Thanks, John Boyle From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jul 31 02:17:46 2003 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:17:46 -0500 Subject: Siouan glottochronology in 1804 Message-ID: W. Clark in Jrnls. Lewis & Clark Exped. 3.32: "This Great Nation who the French has given the nickname of Sciouex, Call them selves _Dar co tar_[.] their language is not peculiarly their own, they Speak a great number of words, which is the same in every respect with the Maha, Poncaser, Osarge & Kanzies. which Clearly proves that those nation at Some Period not more than a century or two past the Same nation" Alan P.S. Is the -s- in Poncaser real? (The -r is simply the reverse spelling of a hard-core nonrhotic speaker; see also Osarge.) From napshawin at hotmail.com Thu Jul 31 03:43:40 2003 From: napshawin at hotmail.com (Violet Catches) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:43:40 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From napshawin at hotmail.com Thu Jul 31 03:54:20 2003 From: napshawin at hotmail.com (Violet Catches) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:54:20 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From napshawin at hotmail.com Thu Jul 31 04:01:04 2003 From: napshawin at hotmail.com (Violet Catches) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:01:04 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jul 31 13:09:13 2003 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:09:13 -0400 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: John: I'll be prepared to give a chapter of my book: Deixis in Crow. And I do plan on being there for the syntax workshop on Thursday. Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 14:59:27 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:59:27 -0600 Subject: Our wish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ > form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can > shed light on this. Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the compound *kuN=ra (both parts inflected in Dhegiha). The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < stem gaghe. The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 15:10:03 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:10:03 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: <2721911269.20030731012826@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Wablenica wrote: > I wonder whether L./D. > > ta'ku-yA, to have/use smt for/as smt, > and > taku'-yA, to have smb as some/which? relative > > are etymologically different words? > > At least Ella Deloria considered taku'yA a derivative from ta'ku, > what/something. I think there's the same form, presumably causatives of taku. The comparable form in Omaha-Ponca is e=dhe '(to be a) relative' < *e 'it, the aforesaid' + CAUSATIVE. Omaha-Ponca, like Dakota, has a possessive construction for kin formed by applying the causative to the kinterm stem. At least one textual example I have seen in Dorsey seems to suggest that the construction applies in OP for cases of "ostensive" kin, or individuals (families, actually) adopted through the pipe-dance ceremony. This is also apparent in forms like iNdadi=dhe '[Federal tribal] agent' < 'father', ttigaN=dhe 'President, Federal official' < 'grandfather'. khage=dhe 'friend' Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the > way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary > conjugates 2s as moN-ni. An example of an Omahaism in LaFlesche. > > Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might > mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed > to me a few months ago. She said that there was a > distinction in asking about "having" something, as > follows: > > KinoN'noNge aniN' a? > Do you have (possess) a car? > > KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? > Do you have (your) car (along with you)? > > I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've > brought it up to the list before. > > Is it possible that there are actually two grades > of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends > to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Anything is possible, I guess, but I suspect the article is the critical factor here. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 17:01:18 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:01:18 -0500 Subject: Our wish Message-ID: Thanks, John. It looks like I was wrong in equating the second syllable of /goN'dha/, etc., with the verb "think", Os. /edhe/. I'd like to clarify some of what you said: > whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. Did you mean =ye here, or =re? I thought *r => Dh. [dh], [y], etc., while *y => Dh. [zh]. > Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra .... > The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the > compound *kuN=ra .... So across all of Siouan, this *ra stem is known only in Dhegihan *kuN=ra ? > The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in > Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) > as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < > stem gaghe. How many distinct *k- stems do we have? Could it be that when consonant clusters are reduced, *pku- => *kku-, while *pka- => *ppa- ? I.e., high, back vowels like velar stops, while other vowels prefer labial stops? > The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, > but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. In OP we have 1s /kkoNbdhe'goN/, "I sorta want", which is recognized by our speakers, and 1s /kkoN ebdhe'goN/, "I wish", which is not recognized by our speakers, but was present in the 19th century. OP "think" is /edhe'goN/, with 1s /ebdhe'goN/. I assume this derives from Dh. *edhe, "think", + OP =e'goN, "like that" or "sorta". I don't know whether the "sorta want" and the "wish" form paradigms are full or defective. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Our wish owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 09:59 AM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ > form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can > shed light on this. Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the compound *kuN=ra (both parts inflected in Dhegiha). The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < stem gaghe. The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 17:35:01 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:35:01 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an > etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable. > However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the > vowel or syllable might be. I have long been suspicious on semantic > grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative > -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to > distinguish them. I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else. This is indeed a surprising function - at least it was to me initially, before I got used to it - it does seem to be the causative. Parallels in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages are always the causative stem of that language - yA in Dakotan, dhE in Omaha-Ponca, hi in Winnebago, etc. For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca uses gaghe 'to make' in the sense of 'to perform, to imitate, to act as if one were', e.g., for a shaman magically behaving as a particular bird or animal. This strikes me as at least analogous. JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 18:25:27 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:25:27 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: >> KinoN'noNge aniN' a? >> Do you have (possess) a car? >> >> KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? >> Do you have (your) car (along with you)? > Anything is possible, I guess, but I suspect the > article is the critical factor here. I don't think that was the case. She went out of her way to explain this to me, and reassured me repeatedly of the distinction. The implication of the second example (we're talking about a real, known car) tends to force the article, but I'm quite sure the primary distinction was intended to be made by the verb. Again, I don't know how general this is. It may well be a family dialect or an ideolect. I know that I myself have come up with definable words of my own in English that I later find no dictionary recognizes. Mark and I talked to the speakers last night. I ran this by them for /moNdhiN/. They recognized the you- form in both versions: /moNniN/ and /moNshniN/. They weren't able to establish a semantic difference that they could translate into English, but they puzzled over it a bit in a way that suggested there might be one. I've asked them to think it over and we'll check back with them later. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: any more chairs? owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 11:30 AM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the > way it is in OP. Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary > conjugates 2s as moN-ni. An example of an Omahaism in LaFlesche. > > Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might > mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed > to me a few months ago. She said that there was a > distinction in asking about "having" something, as > follows: > > KinoN'noNge aniN' a? > Do you have (possess) a car? > > KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a? > Do you have (your) car (along with you)? > > I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've > brought it up to the list before. > > Is it possible that there are actually two grades > of you- inflection for dh-verbs? One which tends > to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it? Anything is possible, I guess, but I suspect the article is the critical factor here. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jul 31 18:43:54 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:43:54 -0500 Subject: taku- vs. taku- Message-ID: The 'have as a relation' *-re certainly shares with the causative the epenthetic -r- and consequent regular pronominal prefixes, i.e., not the "Y-stem" or "*R-stem" prefixes. So it is either polysemous or homophonous with the causative. Morphological causatives have suus and reflexive forms (often indicating permission or acquiescence of the actor). Has anyone tried to elicit these related forms in sentences where they would signal relation rather than causation? That might provide a test. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:35 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: taku- vs. taku- On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an > etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable. > However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the > vowel or syllable might be. I have long been suspicious on semantic > grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative > -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to > distinguish them. I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else. This is indeed a surprising function - at least it was to me initially, before I got used to it - it does seem to be the causative. Parallels in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages are always the causative stem of that language - yA in Dakotan, dhE in Omaha-Ponca, hi in Winnebago, etc. For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca uses gaghe 'to make' in the sense of 'to perform, to imitate, to act as if one were', e.g., for a shaman magically behaving as a particular bird or animal. This strikes me as at least analogous. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 19:02:14 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:02:14 -0600 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I don't think that was the case. She went out of her way to explain > this to me, and reassured me repeatedly of the distinction. The > implication of the second example (we're talking about a real, known > car) tends to force the article, but I'm quite sure the primary > distinction was intended to be made by the verb. You can perhaps test with non-dh-stem verbs in the same frame, or other dh-stem verbs in the same frame. > Again, I don't know how general this is. It may well be a family > dialect or an ideolect. This is possible. > I know that I myself have come up with definable words of my own in > English that I later find no dictionary recognizes. Not quite parallel, but I know the feeling! > Mark and I talked to the speakers last night. I ran this by them for > /moNdhiN/. They recognized the you- form in both versions: /moNniN/ > and /moNshniN/. They weren't able to establish a semantic difference > that they could translate into English, but they puzzled over it a bit > in a way that suggested there might be one. I've asked them to think > it over and we'll check back with them later. You have to be a bit careful with situations like this. While the speaker is the primary source, you can't entirely rely on their judgement to determine whether a distinction exists or does not exist. In the end you have to rely on their behavior - what they do as opposed to what they think they do. What they think they do is always quite interesting and in many cases will be a perfectly reasonable short cut. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jul 31 19:06:23 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:06:23 -0500 Subject: Our wish Message-ID: I haven't checked Chiwere/Winnebago, but as far as I know only Dhegiha has the *-ra part of 'want'. The Dakotan cognate is just /kuN/ 'covet'. It isn't related to Omaha /egaN/, at least not the one used to signal anterior aspect in series of VP's. This latter is related to Dakotan /k?uN/ and seems to be a definite article compounded with *?uN 'do, be'. bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:01 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Our wish Thanks, John. It looks like I was wrong in equating the second syllable of /goN'dha/, etc., with the verb "think", Os. /edhe/. I'd like to clarify some of what you said: > whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. Did you mean =ye here, or =re? I thought *r => Dh. [dh], [y], etc., while *y => Dh. [zh]. > Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra .... > The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the > compound *kuN=ra .... So across all of Siouan, this *ra stem is known only in Dhegihan *kuN=ra ? > The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in > Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) > as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < > stem gaghe. How many distinct *k- stems do we have? Could it be that when consonant clusters are reduced, *pku- => *kku-, while *pka- => *ppa- ? I.e., high, back vowels like velar stops, while other vowels prefer labial stops? > The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, > but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. In OP we have 1s /kkoNbdhe'goN/, "I sorta want", which is recognized by our speakers, and 1s /kkoN ebdhe'goN/, "I wish", which is not recognized by our speakers, but was present in the 19th century. OP "think" is /edhe'goN/, with 1s /ebdhe'goN/. I assume this derives from Dh. *edhe, "think", + OP =e'goN, "like that" or "sorta". I don't know whether the "sorta want" and the "wish" form paradigms are full or defective. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Our wish owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 09:59 AM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > What I don't understand now is why the compound /koN'dha/ > form comes out as an -a stem. Perhaps Bob or John can > shed light on this. Basically, it's just a different stem, *ra whereas 'to think' is *DEMONSTRATIVE=ye. The *ra stem only occurs, that I know of, in the compound *kuN=ra (both parts inflected in Dhegiha). The kuN stem (the first part of *kuN=ra) is unique in Dhegiha in having a first person in k- (*h-kuN or *k-kuN) as opposed to the expected p-, as in ppaghe 'I make' < stem gaghe. The *kuN (OP gaN) stem does compound with 'to think', too, but i haven't had time to look into the details yet. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 19:42:43 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:42:43 -0500 Subject: Chair Message-ID: So what can we agree on now regarding the chair inscription? I think we're debating at least three general questions: 1. What does the inscription intend to say? 2. What language is it supposed to be written in? 3. Who wrote it? Carolyn and I are in substantial agreement on point 1), with a possible quibble over whether MO-NI should be second or third person. John has a different view of the meaning of KO(n)ONTHA, which would alter the message radically. We've considered Louis Garcia's suggestion that Curtis' Indian name should be in there; Bob is looking into what that name may have been. Nevertheless, we all seem to agree that the first part reads: KOTHA UGASHE THI(n)GE XTSI MONI Friend, ailment none very walk Friend, (you?) walk with absolutely no ailment/trouble... Point 2 seems to be up in the air. We've had claims for every Dhegihan language but Quapaw. Considerations are: Curtis' tribal affiliation was Kaw, so we would expect it to come from them. Some of the words and spelling appear to be Osage. Some of the grammar and spelling appears to be Omaha. (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) Point 3 hasn't been argued too vigorously. I suggested that it might have been Francis La Flesche, and Bob at least seems open to the idea. At any rate, the redactor appears to have been a native speaker who approached the task from an Omaha or Ponka orthographical, and probably grammatical, background. Any additions or disagreements with this summary? Rory From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Thu Jul 31 20:05:14 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:05:14 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: <1E4E8370.1A0273D1.0080EA7D@aol.com> Message-ID: >John: > >I'll be prepared to give a chapter of my book: Deixis in Crow. And >I do plan on being there for the syntax workshop on Thursday. > >Randy Thanks Randy, the conference line up was looking a little thin there. Talk to you soon, John From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 20:11:31 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:11:31 -0500 Subject: Vote for Osage! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A good summary! I think it's all Osage:-). It's strange, though, that someone would write out the o'kas^e'iNke 'trouble none' as two separate words, since it's always together with the dh elided as I've written it here. At least nowadays and in every rendition I've ever heard spoken. (But everyone knows that it "really" is made up of the two separate words). The careful two-word approach reflects either an earlier speech pattern, or someone trying to be very correct, or ---copying words out of a dictionary! Doesn't match too well with my idea of maNiN being maNdhiN 'walk, go forth', that is to say if anyone were so careful to write the o'kas^e'iNke rather formally, then it's odd that the person would not be so careful of the latter. Unless it was LF who erroneously thought he was representing very standard Osage with maNiN'? Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:43 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Chair So what can we agree on now regarding the chair inscription? I think we're debating at least three general questions: 1. What does the inscription intend to say? 2. What language is it supposed to be written in? 3. Who wrote it? Carolyn and I are in substantial agreement on point 1), with a possible quibble over whether MO-NI should be second or third person. John has a different view of the meaning of KO(n)ONTHA, which would alter the message radically. We've considered Louis Garcia's suggestion that Curtis' Indian name should be in there; Bob is looking into what that name may have been. Nevertheless, we all seem to agree that the first part reads: KOTHA UGASHE THI(n)GE XTSI MONI Friend, ailment none very walk Friend, (you?) walk with absolutely no ailment/trouble... Point 2 seems to be up in the air. We've had claims for every Dhegihan language but Quapaw. Considerations are: Curtis' tribal affiliation was Kaw, so we would expect it to come from them. Some of the words and spelling appear to be Osage. Some of the grammar and spelling appears to be Omaha. (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) Point 3 hasn't been argued too vigorously. I suggested that it might have been Francis La Flesche, and Bob at least seems open to the idea. At any rate, the redactor appears to have been a native speaker who approached the task from an Omaha or Ponka orthographical, and probably grammatical, background. Any additions or disagreements with this summary? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 20:20:30 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:30 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? Message-ID: > Rory: Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary > conjugates 2s as moN-ni. > Carolyn: Here, as elsewhere, LF is wrong about there being this n for second > person in Osage verbs. He was surely filling in with his knowledge of > Omaha. There are hundreds of problems in the LF dictionary, and quite a few > have to do with the form given being Omaha. > In fact forms like 2s sni and others that LF gives are hilarious to Osages. > Carolyn That may be, but the presence of moN-ni in the La Flesche Osage dictionary is still relevant to the question of the inscription. There is a striking similarity in the mixture of Omaha with Osage in both works, and it seems very likely that the party that wrote the inscription was either La Flesche himself, or someone relying on his dictionary. In either case, that party would probably be expecting the 2s of /moNdhiN/ to be the form which is listed in that dictionary. If so, that would mean that MO-NI is intended to mean "you walk", even though that may never have been the real Osage form. Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 20:36:24 2003 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:24 -0500 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:21 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: any more chairs? That may be, but the presence of moN-ni in the La Flesche Osage dictionary is still relevant to the question of the inscription. There is a striking similarity in the mixture of Omaha with Osage in both works, and it seems very likely that the party that wrote the inscription was either La Flesche himself, or someone relying on his dictionary. In either case, that party would probably be expecting the 2s of /moNdhiN/ to be the form which is listed in that dictionary. If so, that would mean that MO-NI is intended to mean "you walk", even though that may never have been the real Osage form. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jul 31 20:49:17 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:49:17 -0500 Subject: Vote for Osage! Message-ID: "Intended Osage" gets my vote. :-) Unless Bob wants to make a case for Kaw... ?? Rory "Carolyn Quintero" et> cc: Sent by: Subject: Vote for Osage! owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 07/31/2003 03:11 PM Please respond to siouan A good summary! I think it's all Osage:-). It's strange, though, that someone would write out the o'kas^e'iNke 'trouble none' as two separate words, since it's always together with the dh elided as I've written it here. At least nowadays and in every rendition I've ever heard spoken. (But everyone knows that it "really" is made up of the two separate words). The careful two-word approach reflects either an earlier speech pattern, or someone trying to be very correct, or ---copying words out of a dictionary! Doesn't match too well with my idea of maNiN being maNdhiN 'walk, go forth', that is to say if anyone were so careful to write the o'kas^e'iNke rather formally, then it's odd that the person would not be so careful of the latter. Unless it was LF who erroneously thought he was representing very standard Osage with maNiN'? Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:43 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Chair So what can we agree on now regarding the chair inscription? I think we're debating at least three general questions: 1. What does the inscription intend to say? 2. What language is it supposed to be written in? 3. Who wrote it? Carolyn and I are in substantial agreement on point 1), with a possible quibble over whether MO-NI should be second or third person. John has a different view of the meaning of KO(n)ONTHA, which would alter the message radically. We've considered Louis Garcia's suggestion that Curtis' Indian name should be in there; Bob is looking into what that name may have been. Nevertheless, we all seem to agree that the first part reads: KOTHA UGASHE THI(n)GE XTSI MONI Friend, ailment none very walk Friend, (you?) walk with absolutely no ailment/trouble... Point 2 seems to be up in the air. We've had claims for every Dhegihan language but Quapaw. Considerations are: Curtis' tribal affiliation was Kaw, so we would expect it to come from them. Some of the words and spelling appear to be Osage. Some of the grammar and spelling appears to be Omaha. (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) Point 3 hasn't been argued too vigorously. I suggested that it might have been Francis La Flesche, and Bob at least seems open to the idea. At any rate, the redactor appears to have been a native speaker who approached the task from an Omaha or Ponka orthographical, and probably grammatical, background. Any additions or disagreements with this summary? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 20:59:25 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:59:25 -0600 Subject: Chair In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > (Regarding the words, Mark and I visited with our Omaha speakers > last night, and we tried out some of them. They definitely do > not recognize either /kodha/ or /kudha/ as "friend", or as > anything else. For /ugashe/, they kept relating it to the > Omaha word /uga'shoN/, meaning to travel. They did not > recognize /koN oNdha/ either. It seems that all three of > these words are Osage, but not Omaha.) There is a song in Fletcher & LaFlesche that has iNdakkudha '(my) friend' in it. This is possibly a Dakota loan. However, this is a good point. The usual term for 'male friend' in OP in all recorded periods is khage, even though learned linguists might recognize kku/odha. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 21:04:30 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:04:30 -0600 Subject: Vote for Osage! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > Doesn't match too well with my idea of maNiN being maNdhiN 'walk, go forth', > that is to say if anyone were so careful to write the o'kas^e'iNke rather > formally, then it's odd that the person would not be so careful of the > latter. Unless it was LF who erroneously thought he was representing very > standard Osage with maNiN'? I'm assuming they're writing moni for [maNniN], with nasalization of the vowels not indicated, but /dh/ heard as [n] between nasal vowels. That would make the usage more consistant. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 21:13:45 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:13:45 -0600 Subject: any more chairs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > In either case, that party would probably be expecting the 2s of > /moNdhiN/ to be the form which is listed in that dictionary. If so, > that would mean that MO-NI is intended to mean "you walk", even though > that may never have been the real Osage form. This is an important issue for interpretation of the whole text. At least in OP maNdhiN embedded under gaNdha would be inflected (OP maN(s^)niN), but the imperative (under OP ga IMP m. or a IMP f.) would be uninflected - imperatives have no explicit second person marking (OP maNdhiN). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jul 31 21:41:35 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:41:35 -0600 Subject: taku- vs. taku- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Violet Catches wrote: > takuya 'some things' really should be 'taku-eya',?often if you don't > question your informant, they will use colloquial, as if its the real way > to say something. This is intriguing me. Violet, what does eya alone mean, then? From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jul 31 17:31:53 2003 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:31:53 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: Randy: Did you publish a book on Crow? Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:09 AM Subject: Re: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference > John: > > I'll be prepared to give a chapter of my book: Deixis in Crow. And I do plan on being there for the syntax workshop on Thursday. > > Randy > >