From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 04:29:08 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:29:08 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference Message-ID: Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month and half? JEK From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed Jun 11 05:37:06 2003 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:37:06 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's what I thought. Michigan State, isn't it? I've been planning to go. Has there been a change of plans? Mary Marino At 10:29 PM 6/10/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month >and half? > >JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 06:03:14 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:03:14 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: About a month and a half ago, just before my life became an apparently unending sequence of Income Tax forms, miscellaneous and alarmingly past-due deadlines, and, more recently and pleasantly, cheering at junior girls' softball games, Rory Larson had posted a a very long (about 17K) and thoughtful discussion of Dhegiha proximates and plurals. As I am way behind on acknowledging Rory's postings, I thought I could do far worse than to return from the (apparently) dead to tackle some aspects of it. On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Rory wrote: > I'd like to revise my position slightly from what I was > arguing when first grappling with this. First, the dichotomy > between =i and =bi is quite regular in the Dorsey texts. If the > verb is followed by =i, the speaker is asserting it on his own > account as the straight goods. If the verb is followed by =bi, > it means that the speaker is absolving himself of responsibility > for the implication of what he has just said. Thus, =bi is > regularly used in reporting hearsay, or in describing a former > hypothesis. In the latter role, it may cover supposition or > expectation ("supposed to"). I think I've stated before that I am more and more convinced that this does explain the opposition of =i and =bi in Omaha-Ponca texts and, on presume, in conversation, though there are some additional special cases like names and songs where =bi appears. As Rory points out subsequently - I may not make it that far this evening - it might be possible to regard these as special cases of quotative usage, stipulating that this term is not perhaps used ideally in Siouan grammatical terminology. Was it reportative that was considered the better term? > In third person declarative statements, neither =i nor =bi > normally has anything to do with plurality. They do indicate > that the concept is complete rather than progressive, That is, progressives are formed by adding one of the positional forms that serve also as definite articles, and this positional follows a verb that ends in the stem final vowel, without any sign of =i ~ =bi. > and that it is independent of outside influence. Does this refer to sporadic comments in Dorsey's footnotes, especially in Dorsey 1891 that certain forms without =i would be this because the action must have been performed at someone else's behest? > In commands, and in statements and exhortations that use the potential > particle /tte/, =i at least signals plurality. Typically, of course, =tte is followed by a positional, but it does occur without it in a sort of precative or exortative sense that Dorsey tends to gloss 'you will please' as in i'=dhadhe=tte you will please send it hither D90:689.10 udha'gdha?a?a=tta=i ha you will (please) give the scalp yell D90:15.12 > There are a few very rare, but illuminating cases, however, in which > =i is replaced by =bi in these contexts. Referring now to imperatives in =ga (IMPm), rather than precatives. > Usually, you command a group of people in the form: V=i ga! But if > you are conveying someone else's command, you can cast it in the form: > N V=bi ga!, where N is the name of the party whose command you are > conveying! I think the only examples are instances of maNc^hu is^ta'z^ide uihe thi=dha=bi=ga hau Red-eyed Grizzly Bear to join pass along DECLm Go to REGB to fetch the meat! D90:43.12 Dorsey glosses this "grizzly-bear eye-red to-come-for-the-meat pass-ye-on" showing the idiomatic sense of the phrase, referring to the women being summoned to carry home the kill. I think that Rory is exactly right here and the use of =bi conveys that the summons was issued by someone else and is being reported on behalf of the original summoner. I suspect this is at least one variant of the standard message to this effect, delivered on behalf of the hunt leader. > ... In these cases, I don't know whether =bi would be used in the > singular or not. ... As far as I can tell, the =i ~ =bi here is always plural (with the unmarked second person of the imperative form). [I now skip a large section which I hope to ocmeback to, including, in fact, the comments on songs and names. JEK] JEK said: > > Anyway, there's no doubt that both the true Osage > > plural/proximate and the Omaha plural/proximate are > > cognate with the Dakotan plural. They simply have > > different modern patterns of allomorphy, and LaFlesche's > > Osage Dictionary, for unknown reasons, but undoubtedly > > reflecting the Omaha ethnicity of its compiler, has the > > Omaha pattern. This does not seem to reflect anything > > about actual Osage usage at any point. > > The "name defense" and the "song defense" both rested > on the assumption that =i was a recent derivation from > =bi. If these riders go away, then I'm not sure that > that assumption itself is necessary either. Mississippi Valley Siouan *=pi Te OP Os IO Wi =pi =i ~ =bi ~ =b(=az^i) =pi ~ =p(=a) ~ =p(=e) =wi =wi All of these forms condition the a-grade of ablaut. All occur with first, second, and third person as well as imperative plurals. It has been mentioned that =pi can be considerably reduced in Teton fas speech, and in some other Dakotan dialects I believe it is sometimes reduced fairly regularly, though I'm not positive I recall the details correctly. In Dhegiha the alternants also occur with certain third person singulars, as has been seen. The =i alternant is the less marked form in OP. The =bi occurs in the marked context or contexts under discussion. The loss of the final vowel in Dhegiha is essentially due to elision of i before another following vowel. I think all Dhegiha languages lose final i before the negative =(a)z^i, in favor of the a. Osage happens to have male and female declaratives =a and =e that provide quite frequent contexts for loss of i. In fact, I think =p=e is far more common than =pi (because most of the last speakers are female). Why Omaha-Ponca so regularly lost the b instead of the i, and came to retain or restore b in a grammatically conditioned context is not clear to me, but loss of the b (or *p) is not especially exceptional in Siouan developments of =pi. The w in IO and Wi is the regular development of *p in those languages. Ironically, most modern Omaha speakers have lost =i itself in the environment ...a=i##, which is simply ...a##. If there is any change to -a, like lengthening or a if there is a voiceless =i in this context, I missed it. It reappears when various particles (like =ga) follow. I'm have the impression Ponca speakers largely retain it, and Mark Swetland once mentioned an Omaha speaker he encountered in Omaha who apparently usedretained final =i. > John and Regina have both been arguing on the basis > of this assumption, that =i is a reflex of MVS *pi, > and that its existence in that form is a quirk unique > to OP. Regina has suggested that Osage might have > borrowed =i from OP, or that =i might simply be a > speech variation of Osage =pi, to explain the =i forms > that show up in the La Flesche dictionary of Osage. > Against this, John points out the geographical > separation of Osage from OP, and the fact that both > modern Osage and a set of early ritual texts use =pi > for pluralizing; he suspects that La Flesche's Omaha > background may somehow have corrupted the dictionary. I might add that occasional real Osage forms occur in the Dictionary itself, for example in the appended text, or in entries like a-xo-ba-bi 'inviolable'. > In OP, we are fortunate enough to have a very rich > literature recorded from fully fluent speakers in the > late 19th century, which provides a wide variety of > grammatical usages. In that language, =i and =bi > are radically distinct elements which contrast with > each other, while simultaneously signalling several > different semantic implications, not just plurality. > Given how deeply and subtly embedded these particles > are in 19th century OP, can we really be sure that > related languages like Osage did not have a comparable > contrastive pair? I really don't see any evidence to the contrary. Osage reaction to the use of OP =i in the LaFlesche dictionary is pretty decisive. "This is not Osage!" about sums it up. I admit I have this information at second hand from Carolyn Quintero, and may have misunderstood her, and that many other factors, including such simple things as writing ptk as bdg and using anachronistic and rather florid definitions enter in to this, but I think there is no doubt on that score . In addition, though I have not gone into it, my understanding is that Kaw has forms similar to Osage (i.e., mostly =b(=)e, the last speaker being, again, female). Quapaw has =wi or =we, if I recall, but my unpacking hasn't progressed far enough to provide me with something that I can look that up in! > I've looked at the short collection of Osage sayings > at the end of the dictionary, which I understand are > supposed to be basically correct, and not from > La Flesche. There is one case in which =i appears, > in the tta=i tHe form which is common in Omaha, and > which in the context indicates a very certain future. > There are also two or three cases in which =bi is > used for what is singular in the translation. Both > =azhi and =bazhi are used for the negative plural. > If this material is valid, it seems unlikely to me > that Osage =pi was simply a pluralizer at the time > it was collected. It is certainly true, though, that > =bi (=pi) occurs in many places where we would find > =i in 19th century Omaha. The occurrence of =tta=i=the for the 'future of certainty' or future + evidential is interesting, and may point out an environment in which Osage does have an =i, perhaps suggesting the source environment of =i in OP. This environment has another unusual thing about it, whichis that the i- and non-i-variants (in Omaha-Ponca) are =tta=the and tta=i=the, i.e., there is ablaut of =tte before =the. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 06:07:55 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:07:55 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030610233545.02070e68@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mary Marino wrote: > That's what I thought. Michigan State, isn't it? I've been planning to > go. Has there been a change of plans? > At 10:29 PM 6/10/2003 -0600, JEK wrote: > >Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month > >and half? As far as I know, everything is on track, and I, too, am planning to attend. This is just me starting to come out of a fairly lengthy mental hibernation. JEK From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed Jun 11 07:20:17 2003 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:20:17 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's quite alright. I am in much the same situation. I over-react to anything that might signal trouble. Mary At 12:07 AM 6/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mary Marino wrote: > > > That's what I thought. Michigan State, isn't it? I've been planning to > > go. Has there been a change of plans? > > > At 10:29 PM 6/10/2003 -0600, JEK wrote: > > >Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month > > >and half? > >As far as I know, everything is on track, and I, too, am planning to >attend. This is just me starting to come out of a fairly lengthy mental >hibernation. > >JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jun 11 09:38:57 2003 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:38:57 +0100 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I also am planning to come and have booked air tickets etc. Is there any plans for accomodation or do we find ourself a friendly Motel. If so , any suggestions? Look forward to seeing you all. Best wishes Bruce > Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month > and half? > > JEK > > From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Wed Jun 11 14:23:12 2003 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:23:12 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: The Siouan and Caddoan conference IS on. Thanks, John, for reminding us all to start thinking about it. SSILA website says abstracts should be sent to John Boyle by July 3, but not much detail beyond that... was anything ever decided about housing, conference location, exact date (Aug 8-9? 8-10?), etc.? The proposed syntax pre-session, on the other hand, has apparently shrivelled up and vanished -- too little enthusiasm for doing two papers, I guess. I'm not up for writing two papers at this point myself. But I hate to see it completely dropped... Anyone up for a VERY informal syntax roundtable*, say, the afternoon before the meeting? Or even as part of the meeting? I found the Boulder discussions very stimulating, would love to do something like that again, perhaps with even less structure... whoever is interested could just bring problematic data or ideas and let the group have at it, or several of us could agree on a topic to discuss and think about it a little beforehand, but without making formal presentations??? On the other hand, I guess we can also just go down to the local bar and draw tree diagrams on our napkins without having it actually written into the program of the meeting. If there's interest, I'd be willing to coordinate some kind of discussion. Catherine * Interpret with "very informal" modifying "roundtable," of course. I wouldn't want to rule out formal syntax... From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 17:03:06 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:03:06 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: > The Siouan and Caddoan conference IS on. Thanks, John, for reminding us > all to start thinking about it. SSILA website says abstracts should be > sent to John Boyle by July 3, but not much detail beyond that... was > anything ever decided about housing, conference location, exact date (Aug > 8-9? 8-10?), etc.? Ah, I was hoping somebody would remind where to look. SSILA Web site is at http://www.ssila.org and then go to Upcoming Events and then Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference. The actual address of that page appears to be http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/ssila/SACCweb/SACC.htm, though the main site URL is all that shows in the address field of the browser. Mainly we are referred implicitly to the LSA materials, though there's no link. For the LSA Summer Meeting, see http://www.lsadc.org (plain old lsa.org is the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, of course) and the follow links, or go to http://lsa2003.lin.msu.edu/ directly. I'm guessing that housing arrangements for the LSA Summer Institute might apply to us. In particular, the housing page lists some hotels and the travel page looks useful. What's the scale of the conference area? Looks like it's about 3 or 4 miles from the airport. In regard to my guess, I don't see anything about people attending small associated meetings. I'm certain we must not have to register as students or affiliates, but how much of a registration do we have to fill out and what fees, etc., do we have to pay? Will "foreign attendees" have to wear those little cattle ear-tags with their visa number and a DNA code stamped on them? (I'm just kidding - you only have to have it clipped to your lapel. :-{=]) We are listed as an event. > The proposed syntax pre-session, on the other hand, has apparently > shrivelled up and vanished -- too little enthusiasm for doing two papers, I > guess. I'm not up for writing two papers at this point myself. But I > hate to see it completely dropped... Anyone up for a VERY informal syntax > roundtable*, say, the afternoon before the meeting? Or even as part of the > meeting? I found the Boulder discussions very stimulating, would love to > do something like that again, perhaps with even less structure... whoever > is interested could just bring problematic data or ideas and let the group > have at it, or several of us could agree on a topic to discuss and think > about it a little beforehand, but without making formal presentations??? > On the other hand, I guess we can also just go down to the local bar and > draw tree diagrams on our napkins without having it actually written into > the program of the meeting. These all seem like reasonable alternatives to me. I'd be willing to participate in informal discussions. > If there's interest, I'd be willing to coordinate some kind of discussion. > Catherine > > * Interpret with "very informal" modifying "roundtable," of course. I > wouldn't want to rule out formal syntax... From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 17:08:14 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:08:14 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > Ah, I was hoping somebody would remind where to look. Not nonstandard gapping, just a typo: "remind *me*." > Mainly we are referred implicitly to the LSA materials, though there's no > link. I take it back - see "related links." Slowly he wakes ... From dvklinguist at hotmail.com Wed Jun 11 18:10:11 2003 From: dvklinguist at hotmail.com (David Kaufman) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:10:11 +0000 Subject: New email address Message-ID: Hi, Please be advised that, for future emails, my new email address is: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com. Thanks. Dave Kaufman _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 11 21:18:27 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: > Anyone up for a VERY informal syntax > roundtable*, say, the afternoon before the meeting? I would be. Tentatively count me in. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 11 22:56:59 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:56:59 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > About a month and a half ago, just before my life became an apparently > unending sequence of Income Tax forms, miscellaneous and alarmingly > past-due deadlines, and, more recently and pleasantly, cheering at > junior girls' softball games, Rory Larson had posted a a very long > (about 17K) and thoughtful discussion of Dhegiha proximates and plurals. Uhh... Sorry about that. Guess I got carried away... > As I am way behind on acknowledging Rory's postings, I thought I could > do far worse than to return from the (apparently) dead to tackle some > aspects of it. Welcome back! (I was getting a little worried!) >On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Rory wrote: >> I'd like to revise my position slightly from what I was >> arguing when first grappling with this. First, the dichotomy >> between =i and =bi is quite regular in the Dorsey texts. If the >> verb is followed by =i, the speaker is asserting it on his own >> account as the straight goods. If the verb is followed by =bi, >> it means that the speaker is absolving himself of responsibility >> for the implication of what he has just said. Thus, =bi is >> regularly used in reporting hearsay, or in describing a former >> hypothesis. In the latter role, it may cover supposition or >> expectation ("supposed to"). > I think I've stated before that I am more and more convinced that this > does explain the opposition of =i and =bi in Omaha-Ponca texts and, on > presume, in conversation, though there are some additional special > cases like names and songs where =bi appears. As Rory points out > subsequently - I may not make it that far this evening - it might be > possible to regard these as special cases of quotative usage, > stipulating that this term is not perhaps used ideally in Siouan > grammatical terminology. Was it reportative that was considered > the better term? I know I didn't like "quotative". "Reportative" is better, but might be better yet reserved for the /ama'/ in /biama'/ and elsewhere. In OP, my sense is that =i implies that you are talking about the real world, while =bi means you are talking about the concept, or a hypothesis about the real world. I can't think of a really good word for this in Latin. >> In third person declarative statements, neither =i nor =bi >> normally has anything to do with plurality. They do indicate >> that the concept is complete rather than progressive, > > That is, progressives are formed by adding one of the positional > forms that serve also as definite articles, and this positional > follows a verb that ends in the stem final vowel, without any > sign of =i ~ =bi. Yes. >> and that it is independent of outside influence. > > Does this refer to sporadic comments in Dorsey's footnotes, > especially in Dorsey 1891 that certain forms without =i would > be this because the action must have been performed at someone > else's behest? 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 or permission of another. ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHa'i ha the horse eats or ate the corn (which he should not have eaten); but ShoN'ge tHoN waha'ba kHe dhatHe'e ha the horse eats or ate the corn (given to him for that purpose). ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha The (motionless) horse is eating the corn (which he should not eat). [...] Well, actually, this seems to make the issue one of akHa' vs. tHoN, rather than =i vs. no =i. And then there's that intriguing =e in the tHoN case, which doesn't cause a-grade ablaut. 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. >> In commands, and in statements and exhortations that use >> the potential particle /tte/, =i at least signals plurality. > > Typically, of course, =tte is followed by a positional, but > it does occur without it in a sort of precative or exortative > sense that Dorsey tends to gloss 'you will please' as in > > i'=dhadhe=tte > you will please send it hither > D90:689.10 > > udha'gdha?a?a=tta=i ha > you will (please) give the scalp yell > D90:15.12 Yes. I've been teaching the class to use this form as a substitute for "please". >> There are a few very rare, but illuminating cases, however, >> in which =i is replaced by =bi in these contexts. > > Referring now to imperatives in =ga (IMPm), rather than precatives. Yes. >> Usually, you command a group of people in the form: V=i ga! >> But if you are conveying someone else's command, you can cast >> it in the form: N V=bi ga!, where N is the name of the party >> whose command you are conveying! > > I think the only examples are instances of > > maNc^hu is^ta'z^ide uihe thi=dha=bi=ga hau > Red-eyed Grizzly Bear to join pass along DECLm > Go to REGB to fetch the meat! > D90:43.12 > > Dorsey glosses this "grizzly-bear eye-red to-come-for-the-meat > pass-ye-on" showing the idiomatic sense of the phrase, > referring to the women being summoned to carry home the kill. > > I think that Rory is exactly right here and the use of =bi > conveys that the summons was issued by someone else and is > being reported on behalf of the original summoner. I suspect > this is at least one variant of the standard message to this > effect, delivered on behalf of the hunt leader. I'm glad you agree. This is the only example I ever found. >> ... In these cases, I don't know whether =bi would be used >> in the singular or not. ... > > As far as I can tell, the =i ~ =bi here is always plural > (with the unmarked second person of the imperative form). This case, and the cases of tta=i (will do X) vs. tta=bi (were supposed to do X), all happen to be plural in reference. A singular situation should be equally possible, but I've never run into one. Rory From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jun 11 23:56:15 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:56:15 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Thu Jun 12 01:26:09 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:26:09 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: JEK said: >> > Anyway, there's no doubt that both the true Osage >> > plural/proximate and the Omaha plural/proximate are >> > cognate with the Dakotan plural. They simply have >> > different modern patterns of allomorphy, and LaFlesche's >> > Osage Dictionary, for unknown reasons, but undoubtedly >> > reflecting the Omaha ethnicity of its compiler, has the >> > Omaha pattern. This does not seem to reflect anything >> > about actual Osage usage at any point. >> >> The "name defense" and the "song defense" both rested >> on the assumption that =i was a recent derivation from >> =bi. If these riders go away, then I'm not sure that >> that assumption itself is necessary either. > Mississippi Valley Siouan *=pi > > Te OP Os IO Wi > > =pi =i ~ =bi ~ =b(=az^i) =pi ~ =p(=a) ~ =p(=e) =wi =wi > > All of these forms condition the a-grade of ablaut. > All occur with first, second, and third person as well > as imperative plurals. It has been mentioned that =pi > can be considerably reduced in Teton fas speech, and in > some other Dakotan dialects I believe it is sometimes > reduced fairly regularly, though I'm not positive I > recall the details correctly. In Dhegiha the alternants > also occur with certain third person singulars, as has > been seen. The =i alternant is the less marked form in > OP. The =bi occurs in the marked context or contexts > under discussion. The loss of the final vowel in > Dhegiha is essentially due to elision of i before > another following vowel. I think all Dhegiha languages > lose final i before the negative =(a)z^i, in favor of > the a. Osage happens to have male and female > declaratives =a and =e that provide quite frequent > contexts for loss of i. In fact, I think =p=e is far > more common than =pi (because most of the last speakers > are female). > Why Omaha-Ponca so regularly lost the b instead of the i, > and came to retain or restore b in a grammatically > conditioned context is not clear to me, but loss of the b > (or *p) is not especially exceptional in Siouan > developments of =pi. The w in IO and Wi is the regular > development of *p in those languages. > Ironically, most modern Omaha speakers have lost =i itself > in the environment ...a=i##, which is simply ...a##. > If there is any change to -a, like lengthening or a if > there is a voiceless =i in this context, I missed it. This is what we're finding with our speakers too. They don't have much patience with me trying to stick an =i in after the final vowel. Needless to say, I've been very frustrated in my attempts to get them to illuminate the finer grammatical points of =i and =bi! > I might add that occasional real Osage forms occur > in the Dictionary itself, for example in the appended > text, or in entries like a-xo-ba-bi 'inviolable'. >> In OP, we are fortunate enough to have a very rich >> literature recorded from fully fluent speakers in the >> late 19th century, which provides a wide variety of >> grammatical usages. In that language, =i and =bi >> are radically distinct elements which contrast with >> each other, while simultaneously signalling several >> different semantic implications, not just plurality. >> Given how deeply and subtly embedded these particles >> are in 19th century OP, can we really be sure that >> related languages like Osage did not have a comparable >> contrastive pair? > I really don't see any evidence to the contrary. > Osage reaction to the use of OP =i in the LaFlesche > dictionary is pretty decisive. "This is not Osage!" > about sums it up. I admit I have this information > at second hand from Carolyn Quintero, and may have > misunderstood her, and that many other factors, > including such simple things as writing ptk as bdg > and using anachronistic and rather florid definitions > enter in to this, but I think there is no doubt on > that score . In addition, though I have not gone into > it, my understanding is that Kaw has forms similar > to Osage (i.e., mostly =b(=)e, the last speaker being, > again, female). Quapaw has =wi or =we, if I recall, > but my unpacking hasn't progressed far enough to > provide me with something that I can look that up in! I certainly wasn't calling Carolyn's or your understanding of modern Osage into question. My suggestion was that the language may have changed in the past century between LaFlesche's time and our own, with some of the less common and more subtle grammatical usages simply falling out. Given that independent =i has pretty well disappeared from modern Omaha, I can get a reaction almost as decisively against its being Omaha from our speakers, but we know it not only existed, but was rather ubiquitous, in the 19th century. Also, I don't doubt that *pi forms have shifted to phonological [i] in some contexts in various MVS languages. I'm just not convinced that that is necessarily the way that OP =i originated. [i] is about as short and undistinctive as a word can be, and any number of words could easily reduce to it, including some modal particle other than *pi. What I'm suggesting is that the =i and =bi particles go back separately at least to proto-Dhegiha, if not to MVS. Their exact usage and meaning would be somewhat different from what we know today, and would have evolved in parallel or in contrast in the various daughter languages. MVS: *=pi *=i## (?) Dhegiha: *=pi *=i In most languages, the *=pi form came to signal plurality as its most important function, and spread to the exclusion or near-exclusion of *=i. In OP, however, =i was retained as a reality signaller, in contrast to =bi, which signalled allegedness. In Osage and other Dhegiha languages, =i was retained, but the circumstances for its usage was very rare. 19th century: OP: =i and =bi Osage: mostly =pi, rare =i 20th century: Omaha: loose =i and =bi dropped Osage: =i dropped, =pi retained for plural So Francis LaFlesche, an Omaha, visits the Osage in the early 20th century. As a native speaker of a closely cognate tongue, he approaches Osage through that language. He is aware that there are phonological and semantic differences between the two languages, and he is careful to record Osage correctly. In collecting his verb paradigms, however, he innocently misrepresents the standard we-forms. In Omaha, the pluralization of these is done in =i, and this is the way he proposes his verbs to the elderly Osage speakers. "Can you say oN[verb]-i?" he inquires in Dhegiha. In Osage, the =i form is specialized, rare and archaic, but the elderly speakers recall their elders using it in their youth. To them, it is technically grammatical, so they accept it, and it goes in the dictionary. LaFlesche and his informants get habituated to this routine, and the =i forms pile up with little criticism. In the late 20th century, however, when modern linguists such as Carolyn Quintero go to work with the Osage, the current generation of elders has grown up in the 20th century and has never heard the old =i form used. They flatly reject this form as not being Osage. I think the above hypothesis would exonerate LaFlesche, explain the =i forms in his dictionary, reassure us of the basic value of that dictionary, and explain some possible fossilized =i forms in Osage, without contradicting the findings of our modern lingists. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Thu Jun 12 02:20:49 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:20:49 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: >> I've looked at the short collection of Osage sayings >> at the end of the dictionary, which I understand are >> supposed to be basically correct, and not from >> La Flesche. There is one case in which =i appears, >> in the tta=i tHe form which is common in Omaha, and >> which in the context indicates a very certain future. >> There are also two or three cases in which =bi is >> used for what is singular in the translation. Both >> =azhi and =bazhi are used for the negative plural. >> If this material is valid, it seems unlikely to me >> that Osage =pi was simply a pluralizer at the time >> it was collected. It is certainly true, though, that >> =bi (=pi) occurs in many places where we would find >> =i in 19th century Omaha. > The occurrence of =tta=i=the for the 'future of > certainty' or future + evidential is interesting, > and may point out an environment in which Osage > does have an =i, perhaps suggesting the source > environment of =i in OP. This environment has > another unusual thing about it, which is that the > i- and non-i-variants (in Omaha-Ponca) are =tta=the > and tta=i=the, i.e., there is ablaut of =tte before > =the. 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 niNkHe you-future tta tHe constrained future tta akHa s/he-future-of-their-own-free-will tta ama they-future-of-their-own-free-will ttoNgatHoN we-future ( < tta oNgatHoN (?) ) 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? Rory From lcumberl at indiana.edu Thu Jun 12 05:44:19 2003 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:44:19 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss the conference this year - a big disappointment because I really need to talk to you all! And I would have loved a syntax session. But my daughter is getting married in Seattle and I have to be out there to do the mother-of-the-bride thing, my one and only chance! Oh, but of all years to have to miss! If the conference had been even a week earlier I could have made it, but that's life. I hope one of you will give me a run-down, and maybe send me a set of the handouts. Linda ------------------- From mary.marino at usask.ca Thu Jun 12 06:15:14 2003 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:15:14 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: <200306120544.AAA13227@iupui.edu> Message-ID: Linda - At least one of us will; I' ll collect extras of everything and keep you in mind. Congratulations to your daughter, and best of luck all around. Mary Marino,L&L At 12:44 AM 6/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss the conference this year - a >big disappointment because I really need to talk to you all! And I >would have loved a syntax session. But my daughter is getting married >in Seattle and I have to be out there to do the mother-of-the-bride >thing, my one and only chance! Oh, but of all years to have to miss! >If the conference had been even a week earlier I could have made it, >but that's life. I hope one of you will give me a run-down, and maybe >send me a set of the handouts. > >Linda >------------------- From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jun 12 14:25:50 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > In OP, my sense is that =i implies that you are talking about the > real world, while =bi means you are talking about the concept, or > a hypothesis about the real world. I can't think of a really > good word for this in Latin. In Osage lots of posttonic voiceless stops and affricates simply vanish intervocalically in more rapid speech. Carolyn would have to be the one to say whether it ever happens with -api/-ape or not, but it certainly happens word-internally. In Kaw I never had a single case of -i (i.e., loss of the /b/) anywhere in my data and there is no trace of it in Dorsey's Kaw data either. Same for Dorsey's Quapaw where the particle is -awi/-awe regularly. Even the phonologically "weaker" /w/ stays. So I wonder if we simply have a more rapid delivery when we "know what we're talking about", but when we voice hypotheses and the like, we simply slow down and the phonology doesn't routinely suffer so much fast-speech reduction? As for the initial /a/ of -api, -azhi, etc., of course it could historically be a separate morpheme. Actually I think John has had a theory that this was so since the mid '80's that he can elaborate on. But there is, of course, always a temptation to keep reducing things until, basically, every phoneme is a morpheme. It's a question of evidence. It is the case throughout Dhegiha that the positionals take the "a" form of -tte/-tta, but whether the explanation is analogical or morphological remains unclear, at least to me. Until I find more contexts that would help put a label on it, I personally take the explanation to be analogical. Bob From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Thu Jun 12 16:32:44 2003 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:32:44 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: >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. Oh, good!!! Looks like at least a few people are interested. I suppose "junction/juncture" covers issues like subordination/coordination of clauses & phrases/"flat" vs. more hierarchical structures/generally how various syntactic units are connected to each other????? Is that more or less the idea? Thanks for the update, especially on the housing. Looking forward to it ... Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 12 17:12:40 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:12:40 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > This is what we're finding with our speakers too. They > don't have much patience with me trying to stick an =i > in after the final vowel. Needless to say, I've been > very frustrated in my attempts to get them to illuminate > the finer grammatical points of =i and =bi! I think, however, that, knowing that final -a in an ablauting verb represents original -a=i, you can just convert your enterprise to investigating zero vs. =bi. The functionality is the same. I'm not sure I see =bi per se as marking anything. It is just the variant of =i (and now =0) that occurs in "quoting contexts" when =i would otherwise be required. In fact, since =i still occurs before certain following morphemes, what's happened is that =i ~ =bi is now =0 ~ =i ~ =bi. > I certainly wasn't calling Carolyn's or your understanding > of modern Osage into question. My suggestion was that the > language may have changed in the past century between > LaFlesche's time and our own, with some of the less common > and more subtle grammatical usages simply falling out. What I'm saying, however, is that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that Osage has ever had the =i alternative, except maybe in that =tta=i=the context you pointed out (in Osage that should be =tta=i=che, I'd think, with che representing aspirated c, i.e, ts). On that I'd have to check to be certain that the example in question was an unmodified extract of the Osage document I saw once in Carolyn's collection. It was some kind of a missionary publication, I think, that she'd gotten a copy of from a local museum, and was plainly the source of most of the sentences included at the end of the LaFlesche Osage dictionary. Anyway, apart from that both old and modern examples of Osage simply have =pi where OP has =i ~ =bi. This =pi does lose the final i when a declarative or negative follows, yielding =p=e, =p=a, and =p=az^i, as I recall it. In Caroline's materials the =p=e variant is much the most common, and most of the speakers she worked with were women. I'm not sure we ever positively determined that =e was the feminine declarative and =a the masculine, though that seems reasonable, as the comparable OP forms were (in the 1880s) he and ha. (That, too, has changed in modern OP.) A factor that complicates the picture in Osage is that the Osage version of OP ama - the motion/plural progressive auxiliary/article - is apa, all *W becoming p in Osage instead of m as in OP. So, of coruse, female speakers have apa in progressives and =p[=]e in non-progressives, and male speakers have apa vs. =p[=]a. Of course, as Bob has pointed out, =p=e and =p[=]a follow a in ablauting verbs. OP ama vs. ...a=(b)i is a bit of a blessing. In any event, though pe and pa occur plentifully, =i does not. > What I'm suggesting is that the =i and =bi particles > go back separately at least to proto-Dhegiha, if not > to MVS. But there's really no evidence for =i outside of OP, except for that =tta=i=the, and, more importantly, Osage has pi/pe/pa where OP has i, not just where it has bi. I think there actually are some Osage texts from the 1880s, just not many, and unpublished. They might be included in the Swetland microfilm copies of the Dorsey files. There are also Dorsey's lexical slips. From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Thu Jun 12 19:42:51 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:51 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >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. > >Oh, good!!! Looks like at least a few people are interested. I suppose >"junction/juncture" covers issues like subordination/coordination of >clauses & phrases/"flat" vs. more hierarchical structures/generally how >various syntactic units are connected to each other????? Is that more or >less the idea? > >Thanks for the update, especially on the housing. Looking forward to it >... > >Catherine Hi Everyone, Regarding the parasession, Catherine has the right idea. Or if we all just remember school house rock: "Conjunction, conjunction what's your function? hookin' up words, phrases, and clauses" - How do the Siouan languages do this and what is the structure? Best wishes, John From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Fri Jun 13 00:48:54 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:48:54 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > So I wonder if we simply have a more rapid delivery > when we "know what we're talking about", but when we > voice hypotheses and the like, we simply slow down and > the phonology doesn't routinely suffer so much > fast-speech reduction? That's an interesting idea for the origin of the =i vs. =bi distinction. I don't think it works as such to explain the actual situation in 19th century OP. The distinction there is bound up with a difference in grammatical context as well as semantics. The four common ways of forming a statement seem to be: {Concept} i [ha|he]. {Concept} is an ongoing fact. {Concept} i tHe. {Concept} is what happened. {Concept} bi ama'. {Concept} occurred according to the story. {Concept} bi tHe ama. {Concept} had already occurred at this point in the story. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a sentence ending in "bi ha", "bi tHe", "i ama'" or "i tHe ama'", though it should be quite possible for a person to have to pause to think about a fact they are reporting, or to know a story well enough that they shouldn't have to pause to think in recounting it. A problem with this idea is that the =i or =bi comes after the concept it is modifying. Whether you're having trouble putting your concept into words or not, you've already done the job by the time =i or =bi becomes an issue. One could argue though that at some earlier point in OP development *=bi was retained in this form in thoughtful or formal speech involving multiple clauses or sentences, while being elided to =i in rapid or colloquial speech. The difference might then have been grammaticalized into the form we find in 19th century OP. Since =i and =bi work the same way in both Omaha and Ponka, this grammaticalization event would have to have occurred at a much earlier time, in the early 18th century or before. I'd consider this to be a viable hypothesis for the origin of =i vs. =bi, in OP or Dhegiha. It would have the advantage of immediately explaining why =i in OP behaves so much like *=pi in other MVS languages. However, the possibility that =i derives from a completely different element than *=pi seems equally viable. I think this is an open question. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jun 13 14:05:36 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:05:36 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > I'm pretty sure I've never seen a sentence ending in > "bi ha", "bi tHe", "i ama'" or "i tHe ama'", Lots of {-abe che} sequences in Kansa though. I leave it to the Omaha specialists to figure out if there is a difference between OM/PN -ai and -abi, but there isn't any discernable one so far in QU, OS or KS, and, in fact, the *-ai version just doesn't occur as far as I can tell. It's pretty clear that Quapaw split off first, and it also lacks any such distinction. There is a strong tendency for people to try very hard to assign different meanings to allomorphs when questioned explicitly about them. If you "say 'em different" they should mean something different. And, often enough, such allomorphs really develop a semantic distinction. I suspect that if there is a distinction in OM, that's how it happened. English 'brothers' and 'bretheren' were once just variants, but they now have different meanings, even though their singulars are the same. Bob From lcumberl at indiana.edu Fri Jun 13 23:04:13 2003 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:04:13 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612001316.00b52cd8@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Hi Mary, Thanks so much! Here's my address: 417 N. Indiana Ave. Bloomington, IN 47408 The saving grace of all of this is that my daughter is so happy - and I really like the young man. It should be fun, but I will really miss being with all of you. Best, Linda ------------------- > Linda - At least one of us will; I' ll collect extras of everything and > keep you in mind. > Congratulations to your daughter, and best of luck all around. > > Mary Marino,L&L > > > > > At 12:44 AM 6/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss the conference this year - a > >big disappointment because I really need to talk to you all! And I > >would have loved a syntax session. But my daughter is getting married > >in Seattle and I have to be out there to do the mother-of-the-bride > >thing, my one and only chance! Oh, but of all years to have to miss! > >If the conference had been even a week earlier I could have made it, > >but that's life. I hope one of you will give me a run-down, and maybe > >send me a set of the handouts. > > > >Linda > >------------------- > > > > From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Sat Jun 14 00:12:04 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:12:04 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > But there's really no evidence for =i outside of OP, except for that > =tta=i=the, and, more importantly, Osage has pi/pe/pa where OP has i, not > just where it has bi. I've been looking over Carolyn Quintero's "First Course in Osage" book in Mark's office. It looks like there are number of cases where we get some sort of Cai sequence, including the end sequence of the we-plural form. I think she mentions these somewhere as diphthongs. This may be a phonological quirk of Osage, and if so, that =tta=i=the would be explained away. Are you familiar with these? As far as I can tell, pi generally functions as a pluralizer, except in third-person declarative forms (pe/pa), where it is used for either singular or plural. Is this understanding correct? There also seems to be a post-verbal particle =dhe ~ =e which is supposed to function as a sort of emphatic. Does this equate to anything in any language outside of Osage? Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from the comparativists (John? Bob?) on the alternate Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer =ire. Is it known to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? > I think there actually are some Osage texts from the 1880s, just not many, > and unpublished. They might be included in the Swetland microfilm copies > of the Dorsey files. There are also Dorsey's lexical slips. Thanks for the tip! I hope I run into them soon! Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jun 14 14:26:33 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:26:33 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: > I've been looking over Carolyn Quintero's "First Course in Osage" > book in Mark's office. It looks like there are number of cases > where we get some sort of Cai sequence, including the end sequence > of the we-plural form. I think she mentions these somewhere as > diphthongs. This may be a phonological quirk of Osage, and if so, > that =tta=i=the would be explained away. Are you familiar with > these? I don't have the instructional materials, but I leave it to Carolyn to comment on the Osage. I did recordings with 3 fluent OS speakers back about 1980 but never heard the -p- elided or missing. But, as I said, loss of post-accentual stops is not uncommon within roots and stems. Compare Omaha sne:de and Osage ste: 'long, tall'. There are many other such. > As far as I can tell, pi generally functions as a pluralizer, > except in third-person declarative forms (pe/pa), where it is > used for either singular or plural. Is this understanding > correct? Again, I won't try to speak for Osage, but the endings -api/-ape are the unmarked/female plural and 3sg markers (3rd sg. for some grammatical category having to do with obviation, as discussed often on the list). These suffixes are bimorphemic (at east). -Ape incorporates the feminine declarative marker -(dh)e. If you also have a male declarative, -ha, then -apa might occur too, I suppose, but since the speakers I've worked with have been predominently female, I cannot say for sure. > There also seems to be a post-verbal particle =dhe ~ =e which is > supposed to function as a sort of emphatic. Does this equate to > anything in any language outside of Osage? Yes, that's the female declarative (above). It is found all over Mississippi Valley Siouan. You have it (or used to have it) in Omaha and Ponca, all other Dhegiha dialects, Dakotan and probably Chiwere in one form or another. Sara Trechter has a short comparative study of the gender-sensitive modals, and I think she found it everywhere in MVS except Winnebago. In WI it may have a few reflexes in songs, but I think that's basically an open question. She could tell you much more. > Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from the comparativists > (John? Bob?) on the alternate Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer > =ire. Is it known to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? Unless John has something on this I don't think it's ever been tackled seriously by Siouanists. I seem to recall a Mandan 3rd person pluralizer that had a similar sequence of -VrV, but I'm just saying this from (an ever less reliable) memory. I also have a vague recollection of maybe an analogous Tutelo form. (I'm at home and can't look these things up at the moment.) > > I think there actually are some Osage texts from the 1880s, just not > many, and unpublished. They might be included in the Swetland microfilm copies > > of the Dorsey files. There are also Dorsey's lexical slips. I just looked at Mark's microfilms last week. The Kaw Nation has copies. Look on reel 7. Reel 6 contains some (not nearly all) JOD's Kaw material. Reel 7 is Osage and Reel 8 is Quapaw. All are selective and not complete versions of the Dorsey files, but we owe Mark a debt of gratitude for including the (quite respectable) amounts of those languages that he was able to with his space/time constraints. I assume all of the first 5 reels are Omaha and Ponca. There's still lots more to understand. . . . Bob From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Sun Jun 15 19:58:24 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:58:24 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: > I just looked at Mark's microfilms last week. The Kaw > Nation has copies. Look on reel 7. Reel 6 contains > some (not nearly all) JOD's Kaw material. Reel 7 is > Osage and Reel 8 is Quapaw. All are selective and not > complete versions of the Dorsey files, but we owe Mark > a debt of gratitude for including the (quite > respectable) amounts of those languages that he was > able to with his space/time constraints. I assume all > of the first 5 reels are Omaha and Ponca. Reels 1-3 are the Omaha/Ponca dictionary slips. Reel 4 has miscellaneous material, including about 450 Osage vocabulary slips collected from other investigators. A lot of them seem to be from a Dr. Murray, who represents [i] with 'e' and [a] with 'augh'. Thanks for the advice. I think I'll skip ahead! Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Sun Jun 15 21:18:50 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:18:50 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: >> Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from >> the comparativists (John? Bob?) on the alternate >> Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer =ire. Is it known >> to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? > > Unless John has something on this I don't think it's > ever been tackled seriously by Siouanists. I seem to > recall a Mandan 3rd person pluralizer that had a > similar sequence of -VrV, but I'm just saying this from > (an ever less reliable) memory. I also have a vague > recollection of maybe an analogous Tutelo form. (I'm > at home and can't look these things up at the moment.) Alright, then how would this work as a phonological sequence for =ire, supposing it were present in MVS, and supposing it were to make it down intact into the Dhegihan languages? MVS: =ire | ------------------------------------ | | HC: =ire Dh: =ire | | | ------------------------- | | | | | OP: =iye | | | | | | | | | | HC: =ire OP: =idhe Os. =idhe Ks. =iye I'm assuming that OP at least went through an intermediate stage of [y] between [r] and [dh]. I'm basing that assumption on the fact that i- verbs take an epenthetic [dh] between the i- and a- morphemes in the I-form: 3rd: i-{verb} ==> i{verb} you: i-dha-{verb} ==> idha{verb} I: i-a-{verb} ==> idha{verb} Since the shift from [i] to any other vowel can optionally be interpreted as [y], i-ya and i-a sound the same, and both can be understood as i-ya. Then if [y]=>[dh], both come out as idha. Therefore, to make the above paradigm come out the way it does, there had to be a time in OP history when the [r]=>[dh] phoneme was pronounced essentially [y]. Is this generally accepted? Rory From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Sun Jun 15 21:28:25 2003 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:28:25 +0100 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: Rory et al: The 'Dr Murray' is the author of one of the earliest Osage vocabularies. It's not William Vans Murray, who got a vocab of Choptank Algonquian which has often been taken as Nanticoke. I'm not sure if it's the Osage vocabulary which occupies a single page in Schoolcraft's thuge book. The earliest Osage vocabulary I know of is by John Bradbury, a naturalist from Stalybridge in Cheshire, England, who collected it c. 1800, at a time whe hewas staying with the Spanish furtrader Manuel Lisa . It's found in Bradbury's book 'Travels in the Interior of America', which was repirnted in the 1960s. Bradbury was no James Owen Dorsey in terms of linguistic skill, but he was a better phonetician than Dr Murray. Anthony Grant ----- Original Message ----- From: Rory M Larson To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. > > > I just looked at Mark's microfilms last week. The Kaw > > Nation has copies. Look on reel 7. Reel 6 contains > > some (not nearly all) JOD's Kaw material. Reel 7 is > > Osage and Reel 8 is Quapaw. All are selective and not > > complete versions of the Dorsey files, but we owe Mark > > a debt of gratitude for including the (quite > > respectable) amounts of those languages that he was > > able to with his space/time constraints. I assume all > > of the first 5 reels are Omaha and Ponca. > > Reels 1-3 are the Omaha/Ponca dictionary slips. Reel 4 > has miscellaneous material, including about 450 Osage > vocabulary slips collected from other investigators. > A lot of them seem to be from a Dr. Murray, who > represents [i] with 'e' and [a] with 'augh'. > > Thanks for the advice. I think I'll skip ahead! > > Rory > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 16 07:34:46 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:34:46 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I've been looking over Carolyn Quintero's "First Course in Osage" book > in Mark's office. It looks like there are number of cases where we > get some sort of Cai sequence, including the end sequence of the > we-plural form. I don't have this material, but I suspect that the ai in this case is a reduced a(dh)e, presumably the declarative on a dual. > As far as I can tell, pi generally functions as a pluralizer, > except in third-person declarative forms (pe/pa), where it is > used for either singular or plural. Is this understanding > correct? I believe so. Allowing for -pi ~ -pe ~ -pa as allomorphs instead of OP -i ~ -bi ~ -b- it's essentially the same situation as OP. > There also seems to be a post-verbal particle =dhe ~ =e which is > supposed to function as a sort of emphatic. Does this equate to > anything in any language outside of Osage? It's the feminine declarative, comparable to OP -he (vs. masculine -ha(u)) in the Dorsey texts. I'm not sure if it's necessarily cognate. It seems to be a better match for OP -dhe (vs. -dha(u)), which is more emphatic than the declarative, and also occurs in reporting or announcing the words of others (-edhe,- adha). I recall that Clifford Wolfe used to use -ano (-adhau) in his PowWow announcing. > Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from the comparativists > (John? Bob?) on the alternate Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer > =ire. Is it known to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? Frommemory: Winnebago -irE ~ -wi IO -hnE ~ -wi Mandan -kErE (< -krE) Tutelo -hlE It has always looked to me like the PS form is something like *=kre. I don't understand Winnebago i. It's a bit like Teton having iNktE in the future (with some support in Winnebago, as I recall), while the others all have *kte (with the e-grade). I think *=kre conditions the a-grade in ablaut, like *=pi, so, as Bob has been pointing out, it's probably best to speak in terms of *akre and *api. In an aside, OP e=iN=the 'perhaps' may have a cognate of the Teton iN of the future, though this iN never occurs with the future =tte. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 16 08:37:03 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:37:03 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with enye before i). I'm sorry, I think the -hne in my last letter was spurious. It's just -ne. I can't seem to locate Whitman at the moment, but I believe that's correct. Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Alright, then how would this work as a phonological > sequence for =ire, supposing it were present in MVS, > and supposing it were to make it down intact into > the Dhegihan languages? > > MVS: =ire ... > | | | | > HC: =ire OP: =idhe Os. =idhe Ks. =iye Hc (not Ho?) being Hochank, I assume. > I'm assuming that OP at least went through an > intermediate stage of [y] between [r] and [dh]. > I'm basing that assumption on the fact that > i- verbs take an epenthetic [dh] between the > i- and a- morphemes in the I-form: Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic situations. PMV (PS) Te OP Os Ks IO Wi *y c^h z^ z^ z^ r ~ y* r *r y* dh* dh* y* r* r* *Note: Rather complicated mergers of *r with *R in clusters, which sometimes look like allophony in r reflex, cf. Osage orthographic dh but br vs. OP dh and bdh. Whitman (not knowing the historical phonology at all) argues that y in IO is old *z^, if I recall. *ira iya- idha- idha- iya- ira- (h)ira *iro iyo- udhu- odho- oyo- ora- (h)iro- (roo-?) *ra ya- dha- dha- ya- ra- ra- *hirE =yA =dhE =dhE =yE =hi =hi DAT *hire =khiyA =khidhe =ks^idhe =khidhe ? =gigi These are (1) the combination of i and a locatives, (2) the combination of i and o locatives, (3) the regular second person active pronominal, (4) the simple causative, and (5) the dative of the causative. I'm not sure why the pronominal's initial behaves as if it were epenthetic, since it probably isn't. Note that the pronominals precede the Dakotan and Dhegiha causative, but follow the IO and Wi causitive, so the formula was originally something like *=hi=PRO-(r)a. Hidatsa and Biloxi have evidence of the same pattern. The datives involve considerable innovation in morphosyntax and are often not really datives. Wi g < *k-h is regular, but probably the underlying form there is something like *ki-k-hi. Osage ks^ is orthographic practice for /kh/ [kx ~ ks^], with ks^ before i and e and u. There are other contexts for the epenthesis of *r in Dhegiha in particular, e.g., the inflection of regulars with the *i locative, and generally regularly between *i and the first persons and inclusives of the form a and aN (or oN). Also idhadi 'his father' (but not dhiadi 'your father'), to cite OP forms. > Since the shift from [i] to any other vowel can > optionally be interpreted as [y], i-ya and i-a > sound the same, and both can be understood as > i-ya. There are two complicating factors here. One is that the rhoticization of *y looks like it dates to Proto-Siouan and was complete before Dhegiha existed as a separate branch, though, of course, it may have been a dialect cluster in Proto-Mississippi Valley within Proto-Siouan (if we assume no substantial displacements of components of PMV and PS, as displacements (migration) tend to mess up dialect structures - sort of like trying to move your house of cards to another table). The other factor is that once it is established in a language that r (or n) is the appropriate segment to separate some kinds of vowels from other kinds, and especially if those language lack a contrastive y (and maybe tend to give r near i a bit of palatalization), then r (or n) becomes the logical thing to insert between i and other vowels. Quite a few Native American languages use epenthetic r (or n) to separate one vowel from another. I guess a third factor here is that we might want to consider "the epenthetic sonorant" whatever it is (y, r, n, dh, ...) as being effectively a separate segment from whatever it happens to sound like at the moment. For example, I have the distinct impression that speakers of Omaha know which dh's are real and which are epenthetic, at least to the extent of knowing that the latter are far more elidable in fast speech, so that you get variants like Is^tinikhe ~ Is^tidhiNkhe or maNdhiNkka ~ maNiNkka or dhiNkhe ~ iNkhe rather more frequently than similar losses with initial dh of dh-stems, and so on. I realize that this is relatively more - OK, heretically more - morphologized than we ideally like phonology to be and that I may have to do penance for this in the afterworld. Of course, and dh is fair game in fast speech and I spent a good deal of time agonizing over the sentence introducing particle ege before I finally concluded it was just egidhe 'finally, as expected, naturally' said even faster than usual. I think that's ultimately from 'to say' - a sort of more regular version of the dative, vs., well, ege (e=gi-e), though I don't think this latter ege accounts for the former one. I suppose English analogs might be "quotha" or "says'e" or "'n('en) he goes." Just a guess. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jun 16 13:50:23 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:50:23 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: Thanks to Rory for the additional info on the microfilms. I didn't have a chance to look at all of them as it took me the better part of an hour during my visit to figure out how to work the machine. :-) As John points out, lots of western hemisphere languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but what it contrasts with. I'll check Giulia's Tutelo for the -(k)ire suffix. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Mon Jun 16 15:18:33 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:18:33 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: >> HC: =ire OP: =idhe Os. =idhe Ks. =iye > Hc (not Ho?) being Hochank, I assume. Yes. I thought I had seen it abbreviated that way by one of the Hochank specialists on the list before, and supposed that that was preferred. I see you're using Wi. By the way, John, get some sleep! I hate to think I kept you up till 3:30 in the morning on this! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 16 17:30:18 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:30:18 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: <005f01c3340e$3d8f64e0$d1b5ed81@ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, rankin wrote: > Thanks to Rory for the additional info on the microfilms. Actually, Mark Swetland also made a fairly detailed index to the films, which I have filed but, well, then I moved three or four times. I know I still have it, but where? JEK From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Tue Jun 17 01:00:57 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:00:57 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: John wrote: > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > situations. Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John for his thorough discussion of this fly in my ointment! However, Bob wrote: > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > what it contrasts with. So perhaps I don't really need to worry about the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: MVS: =i(*r)e | --------------------- | | | Dh: =i(*r)e | | | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) | | Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we have: MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire OP: xe xa=bi xa=i I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade ablaut in this case. John wrote: > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > enye before i). Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in the declarative form, if the other ones are all like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be correct? Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also used for the 3rd person singular declarative. There is presumably some subtle difference in meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. The process is similar to English "should have" first being slurred to "should've" and then reconstructed as "should of". Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving behind a few traces of its original presence in fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. If the semantic distinction is strengthened, however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e element bursts its cage and becomes a completely parallel, but separate, form that needs to be rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. This is what will have happened in OP. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Tue Jun 17 01:41:38 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:41:38 -0500 Subject: Winnebago =ire Message-ID: I have a couple of questions about the Winnebago pluralizing particle =ire. I was wondering if any of the Hochank specialists in particular would be willing to respond? 1. How would you describe the relationship between =ire and =wi? I understand that =wi is a general pluralizer that can be employed anywhere, while =ire is restricted to the 3rd person plural. Is there any semantic distinction between them? For 3rd plural, when would you use =ire, and when would you prefer =wi? 2. In Lipkind, I found that =ire can be used for both active and stative verbs. The example given for an active verb was /xe/, "bury" (or was it "dig"?). xe xa=wi xa=ire The example given for a stative verb was /sh?ak'/, meaning "old". I recall the "they are old" form as being sh?agire (Now I'm forgetting if that glottal was there or not. Correct me if I'm wrong!) I assume that /sh?ak'/ is related to OP /iNsh?age/, meaning "old man". I assume its original form would be something like /*sh?ake/. Would it be correct to say that the =ire ending conditions a-grade ablaut in active verbs, but not in stative ones? Thanks for any advice you can offer! Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jun 17 03:13:44 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:13:44 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: I went and checked the Tutelo form. There is a 3rd plural suffix /-hele/ that has numerous allomorphs including -hele, -hle, -hela, -hne and others. And re the Hochunk forms, don't forget that *-a > -e after velars in final position, e.g., Proto-Siouan *ru:tka 'dove, pigeon', WI ruucge' and other similar forms. Bob From johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Tue Jun 17 09:09:27 2003 From: johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:27 +0200 Subject: Winnebago =ire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Rory, let me briefly respond to your query on Hocank (Winnebago). -ire ist indeed a 3pl suffix that neutralizes the active / inactive distinction in intransitive verbs. In transitive verbs it is the 3pl actor exponent. 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. -wi is not specific with regard to the semantic role in intransitive verbs. It is not specific with regard to the semantic role in transitive verbs either. If there are two core participants of the first and second person represented by the respective prefixes, -wi can pluralize either one or the other or both. I'll illustrate this with an example: hiNnaxáwi 'you (sg) bury us (excl)' /hiN-ra-xée-wi/ 'you (pl) bury us (excl)' 'you (pl) bury me' Since -wi is used to pluralize SAP(s) only it cannot be used as an indefinite pronominal affix. Reference is alsways definite. On the other hand, -ire can be used as an indefinite pronoun pretty much like the English they. Both suffixes -wi and -ire trigger e->a ablaut, and -ire also undergoes this rule, but I am not aware that this is determined by the class of the verb (active/ inactive). I hope this answers the questions. Best Johannes Helmbrecht Rory M Larson schrieb: >I have a couple of questions about the Winnebago >pluralizing particle =ire. I was wondering if >any of the Hochank specialists in particular >would be willing to respond? > >1. How would you describe the relationship > between =ire and =wi? I understand that > =wi is a general pluralizer that can be > employed anywhere, while =ire is restricted > to the 3rd person plural. Is there any > semantic distinction between them? For > 3rd plural, when would you use =ire, and > when would you prefer =wi? > >2. In Lipkind, I found that =ire can be used > for both active and stative verbs. The > example given for an active verb was /xe/, > "bury" (or was it "dig"?). > > xe xa=wi xa=ire > > The example given for a stative verb was > /sh?ak'/, meaning "old". I recall the > "they are old" form as being > > sh?agire > > (Now I'm forgetting if that glottal was > there or not. Correct me if I'm wrong!) > > I assume that /sh?ak'/ is related to OP > /iNsh?age/, meaning "old man". I assume > its original form would be something like > /*sh?ake/. > > Would it be correct to say that the =ire > ending conditions a-grade ablaut in active > verbs, but not in stative ones? > >Thanks for any advice you can offer! > >Rory > > > > > From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Tue Jun 17 22:35:27 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:35:27 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: Bob wrote: > I went and checked the Tutelo form. There is a 3rd > plural suffix /-hele/ that has numerous allomorphs > including -hele, -hle, -hela, -hne and others. Is it in the complementary distribution with an *=(a)pi suffix that Dr. Helmbrecht describes for Winnebago? > And re the Hochunk forms, don't forget that *-a > -e > after velars in final position, e.g., Proto-Siouan > *ru:tka 'dove, pigeon', WI ruucge' and other similar > forms. So how does that affect the ablaut issue? Thanks, Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 17 23:09:38 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:09:38 -0600 Subject: a > e in Winnebago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > And re the Hochunk forms, don't forget that *-a > -e > > after velars in final position, e.g., Proto-Siouan > > *ru:tka 'dove, pigeon', WI ruucge' and other similar > > forms. > > So how does that affect the ablaut issue? I'm not aware that it does, though in principle it might suppress ablaut in final *-C[+velar](a) stems. It does result in various *-a## being lost when -e## is lost, and in unexpected e after -k (etc.) as in ruucge. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 17 23:52:23 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:52:23 -0600 Subject: More plural. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob wrote: > > I went and checked the Tutelo form. There is a 3rd > > plural suffix /-hele/ that has numerous allomorphs > > including -hele, -hle, -hela, -hne and others. > > Is it in the complementary distribution with an > *=(a)pi suffix that Dr. Helmbrecht describes for > Winnebago? No, but I think the second person plural enclitic is *=pV, where V might be u (from memory). The plurals outside MV are rather different, though they always seem to condition the a-grade in ablaut, and to involve an enclitic element following the stem. Sometimes there's no enclitic with the inclusive. Mandan and Tutelo have different forms in different persons. Biloxi and Ofo both, if I recall, seem to have *ru or *tu. Things are odder still in Crow and Hidatsa. I don't think there's any trace of the *k of putative *krE in Winnebago, but one might argue that -ire is an irregular outgrowth ire, from -ere from -kErE from -*kre, i.e., with generalized loss of the initial k in some sort of stem-enclitic juncture problem resolution. Or one might look at =ne in IO and conclude that Winnebago =ire was a combination of *=i and *=re. This would leave us with *=i to explain separately, if it wasn't taken to be some sort of reduction of =wi. Both the IO and Tu forms suggest some sort of nasalization apparently missing in the other members of this (possible) set. Tu seems to have l ~ n depending on the nasality of the following vowel. Or in some cases in might be the preceding vowel, since here it doesn't seem to depend on the final vowel! It is, of course, difficult to tell. This might be a good point to note that final -i in certain enclitics seems to vary between being oral and nasal across Dakotan dialects and MV languages, e.g., xti(N), =s^i(N). I notice we don't have a model of how enclitic pluralization (or augmentation: [+someotherguys]) arises in Siouan languages as opposed to proclitic or prefixed pronominals. Is this pattern attested elsewhere? The only likely sort of candidate that comes to mind would be some sort of positional, and, of course, *=kre does look rather like a positional, and positionals sometimes condition ablaut. On the other hand, *=pi and *=tu don't especially look like positionals. And why ablaut? If the a- is thought of as part of the enclitic, why do all plural enclitics have it? Has =*api (or *=atu or *=aX) been reduced to =a in many places (as ..a=i reduces to a in modern OP in many contexts) and then been supplemented by other things in various languages? This would parallel cases of multiple personal prefixes on the same stem, e.g., OP a-t-taNbe or wi-b-dhitta (from daNbe and dhitta). Dhegiha has pluralizing positionals in its progressive (or continuative?) forms en lieu of the plural enclitics, and some positionals (interestingly, I think) start with a-, e.g., ama (and singular akha), which seem potentially to be from simpler *ma and *kha, cf. =ma 'animate obviative collective' and =khe 'inanimate or animate obviative supine'. In addition, the inclusive of positionals like thaN 'animate obviative standing' or dhiN 'animate obviative moving' have a sort of extra or "locative" a, e.g., aNgathaN, showing another trace of an a-prefix on positionals. Whatever this a- is, it might elucidate the a of the plural. If progressives tended to generalize into aspectually unmarked forms, a progressive with a positional *=a=pi or *a=tu or *=a=kre might end up an ablauting plural marker. Of course, I still don't know why or what the -a-. I have at times considered that it might be some sort of nominalizer. Progressives might reasonably derive from noun forms, essentially 'his going'. Along these same lines, as Rory (and earlier, Boas) have noted, in some contexts positionals ablaut a preceding stem, e.g., with the future, even when the positional seems to lack an initial a-, cf. =tta=miNkhe 'I will', or =tta=(s^)niNkhe 'you will'. I wonder if those Hidatsa and Crow futures (which look like just a reduced positional as I recall, with *ktE lost) ablaut the preceding stem? Note that Dhegiha positionals following nouns or nominalized (relative) clauses don't seem to induce ablaut. From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 18 02:16:15 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:16:15 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: John wrote: > Dhegiha has pluralizing positionals in its progressive (or continuative?) > forms en lieu of the plural enclitics, and some positionals > (interestingly, I think) start with a-, e.g., ama (and singular akha), > which seem potentially to be from simpler *ma and *kha, cf. =ma 'animate > obviative collective' and =khe 'inanimate or animate obviative supine'. > In addition, the inclusive of positionals like thaN 'animate obviative > standing' or dhiN 'animate obviative moving' have a sort of extra or > "locative" a, e.g., aNgathaN, showing another trace of an a-prefix on > positionals. Whatever this a- is, it might elucidate the a of the plural. > If progressives tended to generalize into aspectually unmarked forms, a > progressive with a positional *=a=pi or *a=tu or *=a=kre might end up an > ablauting plural marker. Of course, I still don't know why or what the > -a-. I have at times considered that it might be some sort of > nominalizer. Progressives might reasonably derive from noun forms, > essentially 'his going'. These are some very interesting ideas. One possibility that occurs to me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. That certainly seems to be a big feature of the /akha/ and /ama/ positionals at any rate. Also, the -e final verbs they use always seem to go to a-grade ablaut. Compare the two sentences from the Dorsey dictionary /akha/ entry that I posted earlier: ShoNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha. The horse ate the corn of his own accord. ShoNge thoN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha. The horse ate the corn given him to eat. In the first sentence, both the positional /akha/ and the declarative =i take a leading a-, while in the second sentence the positional is plain and the declarative becomes =e without leading a-. If this were the case, we'd have to suppose that the "will" forms of the future imply intent, as opposed to the passive potentiality of /tte/. Command particles would also imply intent. The only case that would be problematic to this idea would be the "not" forms, which always cause a-grade ablaut, but which today at least can be used for stative verbs as well as active ones. Perhaps these are just a generalization on earlier active-only forms? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 18 03:59:07 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:59:07 -0600 Subject: More plural. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > These are some very interesting ideas. One possibility that occurs to > me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active > responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. I'm not sure I would agree with this assessment. If -a in ablaut signified intention, then it would be more likely to be characteristic of the first person than the third singular and the plurals (not to mention the negative). If a- (and a-ablaut) in the progressive and future forms marked intention, then it would not be in all forms. In fact, positional-initial-a and a-ablaut are synchronically different things, and, in spite of the list of ablauting forms below, neither seems to be particularly associated with intention. They both behave more like arbitrary morphological patterns. They're more thematic than categorical. All I was trying to suggest myself is that they are somewhat arbitrary morphological facts about the initials of postverbal positionals and the pre-enclitic finals of verbs, leaving us with two traces of a sort of "intervening-a" between verb and enclitics. However, as an intervening marker this a would be more a Pre-Proto-Dhegiha (Proto-Mississippi Valley or Proto-Siouan) phenomenon than a fact of contemporary Dhegiha languages. > Also, the -e final verbs they use always seem to go to a-grade ablaut. > Compare the two sentences from the Dorsey dictionary /akha/ entry that > I posted earlier: > > ShoNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha. > The horse ate the corn of his own accord. > > ShoNge thoN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha. > The horse ate the corn given him to eat. > In the first sentence, both the positional /akha/ and the declarative > =i take a leading a-, while in the second sentence the positional is > plain and the declarative becomes =e without leading a-. Except that =i is not really a declarative, but that "plural/proximate" marker that I still suspect is derived from =bi as well as being in the same inner (but different outer) contexts. The declarative (masculine) here is the (=)ha (modern =ha=u (=ho)). Actually, a better potential example of going to a than the second above might be the third from the original set you cited: ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha The (motionless) horse is eating the corn (which he should not eat). [...] But here we see that the progressive use of akha doesn't condition a-grade ablaut in an e-final verb, while use of akha does do that in the e-final future. > If this were the case, we'd have to suppose that the "will" forms of > the future imply intent, as opposed to the passive potentiality of > /tte/. Command particles would also imply intent. The only case that > would be problematic to this idea would be the "not" forms, which > always cause a-grade ablaut, but which today at least can be used for > stative verbs as well as active ones. Perhaps these are just a > generalization on earlier active-only forms? I think I've missed something. Why are we supposing that a-grades can't occur in statives? I have the impression they did as far back as we can tell. I admit I'm catching up here, reading some newer things before some earlier ones! JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 18 05:40:32 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:40:32 -0600 Subject: More plural (plural enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > No, but I think the second person plural enclitic is *=pV, where V might > be u (from memory). Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu This is a quick summary and may be erronious in some points. It is probably incomplete (in Of, at least) and I will not attempt to describe the principles or syntax of combinations where they can occur. Bi daha is the object plural, while tu is the subject plural. I suspect that the medial (e) in Tutelo is epenthetic, as it is often missing. I've obvious simplified the treatment of Da and Dh. I've omitted Cr and Hi, though I seem to recall that Hi is something like a?a. JEK From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 18 14:04:48 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:04:48 -0500 Subject: More plural (plural enclitics) Message-ID: John wrote: > Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi > 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- > 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu > 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu > 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu 1 stands for exclusive, 12 for inclusive, correct? And the 12 in the 1 position for Tutelo means you don't recall what it is, but that it is the same for both forms of we? Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: More plural (plural enclitics) owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 06/18/2003 12:40 AM Please respond to siouan On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > No, but I think the second person plural enclitic is *=pV, where V might > be u (from memory). Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu This is a quick summary and may be erronious in some points. It is probably incomplete (in Of, at least) and I will not attempt to describe the principles or syntax of combinations where they can occur. Bi daha is the object plural, while tu is the subject plural. I suspect that the medial (e) in Tutelo is epenthetic, as it is often missing. I've obvious simplified the treatment of Da and Dh. I've omitted Cr and Hi, though I seem to recall that Hi is something like a?a. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 18 23:56:41 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:56:41 -0600 Subject: More plural (plural enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > John wrote: > > Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi > > 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- > > 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu > > 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu > > 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu > > 1 stands for exclusive, 12 for inclusive, correct? Right. Not elegant, but fairly clear. > And the 12 in the 1 position for Tutelo means you don't recall > what it is, but that it is the same for both forms of we? Sorry - my omission: It means that you use the historical inclusive form (without any special enclitic) as the plural of the first person. Note that Winnebago is the only Siouan language in which both the first person *and* inclusive can be pluralized. Correlating with this, it seems also to be the only Siouan language in which the inclusive cannot co-occur (in transitives) with either the second person (we-you, you-us) or first person (we-me, I-us). The usual constraint is that it cannot co-occur with the first person (we-me, I-us). Third person with third person (he-him) is, of course, a special case. Anyway, this is the conclusion I draw from Lipkind. General Siouan Winnebago S O O S 1 12 2 3 1 12 2 3 1 - - x x - - x x 1 12 - - x x - - - x 12 2 x x - x x - - x 2 3 x x x x x x x x 3 Incidentally, the missing elements for Ofo I couldn't recall, and I haven't dug up Bob's Ofo grammar summary. In Biloxi the present 1 is the old 12 (used in both singular and plural), and the 1 has been lost, except that some allomorphs of the present 1 may be derived from allomorphs of the old 1. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 19 04:42:58 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:42:58 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide (from ire to ne) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? To specifically address this, you can't get there by regular development. Let us assume that the PS form is *kre, with Mandan surface kere, kara arising from superficial (but universal) epenthesis in clusters as Hollow suggets. In addition, we assume that Tutelo hele, etc., also as frequently or more so hle, etc., reflect a phonetic schwa epenethesis in clusters comparable to that in Dakota or Omaha-Ponca. In that case: Mandan underlying kre is conservative and regular. Tutelo hle suggests *kr > hl (~ hn), not too unreasonable given forms like ki:hniNte 'hungry' or hiNhne 'push, thrust', which look like they might involve *ki-k-r.... However, I have not investigated this correspondence. Winnebago ire might be irregularly reformulated from *kire < *kere, with loss of k. That loss seems reasonable, but I haven't a particular process in mind. IO ne might be from earlier *hre. IO does have hd < *kt, but regular here would be gre. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 19 05:25:02 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:25:02 -0600 Subject: Osage Plural Message-ID: I've consulted Carolyn Quintero's dissertation now, and can report that she gives the plural enclitic as api, following Bob's argument that ablaut is elision of the final vowel of the preceding form in favor of the initial vowel of a following enclitic. This approach works especially well in Dhegiha where the operation of ablaut favors the "underlying e" approach and is in general much simpler in operation than in Dakotan. She reports that api + dhe, the declarative, yields ape. Also the positionals akha and apa + dhe yield kxai and (a)pai. She reports eliciting one instance of future + evidential (what I've sometimes called the 'future of surity' though maybe future of assurance or evidential future would be better). This example was aNka'hi hta ch (i.e., probably ... hta che) 'we will be there'. Note that this agrees with OP in having the a-grade of ablaut. It is probably a dual inclusive, but might be plural. It lacks a plural marker, in any event, but *the takes the expected form che (tsHe). Looking in Dorsey's Osage Traditions, I find various examples of this evidential future in the form: JOD 1888:382.16 z^iNka z^uika aNkukice htache child body we seek our own FUT EVID This would be analogous to OP z^iNga z^uga aNgugine ttathe I also find find a plural form 1888:383.28 aNka'ghe htapeche we make FUT EVID Analogous OP would be aNgaghe ttaithe Another example of the plural (actually proximate in this case) is apiNtau 'he really said', which appears in every line of the tradition. I take this to be something like a=pi(N)=t(h?)au. The first part would be like OP a=i 'he said' (or a=bi in a=bi=ama 'he said, they say'), though the nasalization is puzzling. The latter part is obscure. I suspect it might be something like the EVID + (dh)a=u DECLm, but that would mean that che EVID had an underlying form the in which th was retained if elision removed the root vowel e. Another example of a simple proximate occurs in 1888:393.46 nihkas^iNka wiN sikdha=pe che person a has left a trail Like OP nikkas^iNga wiN sigdha=(b)i=the Of course, it could be argued that everything here is referred to authority, and so would take =pi, but if there were ever an =i, it seems surprising that it should be eliminated in favor of the much more marked =bi form (the opposite of affairs in OP). In fact, it seems that only OP ever had a form =i, which I continue to feel is more likely to derive from =bi than an ancient parallel marker =i lost everywhere else. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jun 18 20:11:32 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:11:32 -0500 Subject: More "ablaut". Message-ID: Rory writes: > > One possibility that occurs to > > me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active > > responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. John writes: > In fact, positional-initial-a and a-ablaut are synchronically different > things, Diachronically too, I think. When I said that the so-called "ablauting" vowel could be a morpheme, I didn't mean "now": I meant something like a couple of thousand years ago. Now, the "ablauting" /-a/ is pretty clearly associated with just 3 or 4 suffixes/enclitics including 'imperative', 'plural' and 'negative' (and may always have been). I didn't mean to open the door to bringing back discussions of the "meaning" of ablaut and segmenting *-api as just -pi. In Mississippi Valley Siouan I regard such discussions as "Dakota-centric" and essentially behind us unless data of the following sort can be clearly isolated (preferably in volunteered, not elicited, speech). Instances in which the *same verb* with the *same plural, imperative or negative enclitic/suffix* can be seen to have different readings with -e than with -a between the root and the clitic/suffix. I think keeping all other variables constant is essential to proof because other verbs offer different phonological environments and, just as important, different opportunities for analogical restructuring. Returning to John's discussion of the -a that is used with positionals, this may be a relatively simple analogical development using 3rd sg. -api/-ape as a model. Or it could also be related to the so-called 'collective' prefix a- used with verbs of motion. Either source (or both of them together) provide(s) a good model for using an analogous a- with positional auxiliaries, although with positionals there may be other possible sources too. All the discussions are useful though. There is so much we don't know about these languages. Rory's examples with the horse eating the food with various presuppositions were fascinating. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jun 19 19:41:20 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:41:20 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: Well, let's see if the third time's the charm in getting this thing to post! It's amazing how much trouble a slight change to one's return address can cause. John wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: >> These are some very interesting ideas. One possibility that occurs to >> me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active >> responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. > > I'm not sure I would agree with this assessment. [...] > > In fact, positional-initial-a and a-ablaut are synchronically different > things, and, in spite of the list of ablauting forms below, neither seems > to be particularly associated with intention. They both behave more like > arbitrary morphological patterns. They're more thematic than categorical. > All I was trying to suggest myself is that they are somewhat arbitrary > morphological facts about the initials of postverbal positionals and the > pre-enclitic finals of verbs, leaving us with two traces of a sort of > "intervening-a" between verb and enclitics. However, as an intervening > marker this a would be more a Pre-Proto-Dhegiha (Proto-Mississippi Valley > or Proto-Siouan) phenomenon than a fact of contemporary Dhegiha languages. That's the time frame I had in mind. I was responding to your original suggestion that the leading a- of /akha/ and /ama/ might be a separate element appended to the /khe/ and /ma/ positionals, and that the same -a- was also appended to pluralizing particles to produce a-grade ablaut in that case. You said that you didn't know just what this a- meant, but had thought it might be a nominalizer. I made the suggestion that it might have signalled intention or responsibility of the actor, and discussed that possibility in the context of OP. I didn't mean to suggest that our hypothetical -a- element was still productive as such in OP or any of the other historical languages! > If -a in ablaut signified intention, then it would be more > likely to be characteristic of the first person than the > third singular and the plurals (not to mention the negative). > If a- (and a-ablaut) in the progressive and future forms > marked intention, then it would not be in all forms. I wonder if you could elaborate on this argument; I'm not following it. Why would you assume that an element signalling responsibility or intentionality would be more likely found in the first person than in the third? If you're speaking of your own actions, isn't your intentionality either obvious, or perhaps too delicate an issue to discuss? And in any case, are we sure that this -a- wasn't originally used in first person singular? If we once had something like /*pre-a/, "I go intentionally", and /*re-a-ire/, "They go intentionally", then simple reduction processes might have clipped the first to /*pre-/, and the second to /*ra-ire/. The fact that we find a-grade ablaut before different particles of plurality likely just means that an original -a- particle was locked in place when it was followed by another particle such as a pluralizer or a command particle, while it would simply be dropped without affecting preceding -e if nothing followed it. Compare the situation in modern Omaha, where last century's ubiquitous =i particles all seem to have disappeared except when followed by command particles or /the/. >> Also, the -e final verbs they use always seem to go to a-grade ablaut. >> Compare the two sentences from the Dorsey dictionary /akha/ entry that >> I posted earlier: >> >> ShoNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha. >> The horse ate the corn of his own accord. >> >> ShoNge thoN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha. >> The horse ate the corn given him to eat. >> >> In the first sentence, both the positional /akha/ and the declarative >> =i take a leading a-, while in the second sentence the positional is >> plain and the declarative becomes =e without leading a-. > Except that =i is not really a declarative, but that "plural/proximate" > marker that I still suspect is derived from =bi as well as being in the > same inner (but different outer) contexts. The declarative (masculine) > here is the (=)ha (modern =ha=u (=ho)). I don't think the =ha/=he particles are exactly declaratives in OP. They can be used to terminate not only a statement, but a command. In this case they are added after the command particle. In either case, they are optional. My sense of them is that they constitute an emphatic period to the sentence. They seem to mean: "Hey! Wake up and grasp what I just said!" On the other hand, I believe the =i and =e particles (and the =akha in the example given below) are functioning as declaratives. They are not optional; you need one of them here (in 19th century OP) to complete the sentence. The =i is certainly not a pluralizer in this context, though it is probably historically derived from one. I don't think the term "proximate" is entirely well defined yet for OP. (Wouldn't these two sentences be a classic example of the difference between "proximate" and "obviative"?) In any case, declaring proximativity shouldn't make =i any less of a declarative. What do you mean by inner and outer contexts? > Actually, a better potential example of going to a than the second above > might be the third from the original set you cited: > > ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha > The (motionless) horse is eating the corn > (which he should not eat). [...] > > But here we see that the progressive use of akha doesn't condition a-grade > ablaut in an e-final verb, while use of akha does do that in the e-final > future. Again, I agree with you that ablaut is a feature that goes back to PS or MVS. This progressive use of akha is transparent by present or recent OP rules of sentence construction, and would have nothing to do with ancient ablaut. I would suppose that the general future form *kte=a=POS goes back much farther, and appears in Dhegiha as *tta=POS. More recently, the positional akha would have been substituted for POS, keeping the preceding tta by analogy. That tta=akha is a grammatically recent innovation is shown by the fact that our hypothetical -a- is now doubled here, which would not have happened if it were still active and semantically understood. >> If this were the case, we'd have to suppose that the "will" forms of >> the future imply intent, as opposed to the passive potentiality of >> /tte/. Command particles would also imply intent. The only case that >> would be problematic to this idea would be the "not" forms, which >> always cause a-grade ablaut, but which today at least can be used for >> stative verbs as well as active ones. Perhaps these are just a >> generalization on earlier active-only forms? > I think I've missed something. Why are we supposing that a-grades can't > occur in statives? I have the impression they did as far back as we can > tell. I admit I'm catching up here, reading some newer things before some > earlier ones! To the extent that a-grades occur with statives, problems are raised for my hypothesis that -a- marked intentionality or responsibility of action. In OP, we have the following possible reflexes of our hypothetical -a-: a=kha and a=ma. These two positionals imply intentional or responsible action, or the role that you describe as "proximate". The presumed root positionals khe and ma do not. Hypothesis works. a-grade ablaut before command particles. We command someone to take intentional, directed action. I don't believe we ever use a command particle with a stative verb in OP; e.g. /saba ga!/, "Be black!" Hypothesis works (I think). tte=>tta before POS to indicate intentionality for the future. Hypothesis works. a-grade ablaut before NEG. Here, I believe that we can have stative verbs preceding NEG that take a-grade ablaut. I can wriggle out of this by assuming that the present NEG form with a-grade ablaut was secondarily extended to cover stative verbs as well as active, but my hypothesis takes a hit. Hypothesis fails. a-grade ablaut before =bi and =i. These are presumably pluralizers historically. Either an active verb or a stative verb can potentially be pluralized, but only an active verb should ever have a particle of intentionality or responsibility associated with it. Hence, if we should find that one of these particles could be used for both active and stative verbs, then my hypothesis would predict that it would condition a-grade ablaut for at least some (most) active verbs, but not for stative verbs. For OP, =bi and =i always produce a-grade ablaut, but I don't think they are ever used with stative verbs. Hypothesis not contradicted. Can you offer any information on a-grade ablauting with statives? Comparative Siouan is fair game! Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jun 20 16:50:57 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:57 -0500 Subject: More "ablaut". Message-ID: Bob wrote: > Diachronically too, I think. When I said that the > so-called "ablauting" vowel could be a morpheme, I > didn't mean "now": I meant something like a couple of > thousand years ago. Now, the "ablauting" /-a/ is > pretty clearly associated with just 3 or 4 > suffixes/enclitics including 'imperative', 'plural' and > 'negative' (and may always have been). I think we're all in agreement on this. If it seemed that I was claiming an ablauting /-a/ particle for modern OP, then I wasn't writing very clearly. > I didn't mean > to open the door to bringing back discussions of the > "meaning" of ablaut and segmenting *-api as just -pi. > In Mississippi Valley Siouan I regard such discussions > as "Dakota-centric" and essentially behind us unless > data of the following sort can be clearly isolated > (preferably in volunteered, not elicited, speech). > > Instances in which the *same verb* with the *same > plural, imperative or negative enclitic/suffix* can be > seen to have different readings with -e than with -a > between the root and the clitic/suffix. I think > keeping all other variables constant is essential to > proof because other verbs offer different phonological > environments and, just as important, different > opportunities for analogical restructuring. That would certainly be the gold standard. I wonder though if you would be willing to bend the *same verb* rule just a little bit here. What if we find a systematic alternation of -e vs. -a grade ablaut with the same enclitic/suffix, according to the semantic class of the preceding verb? Specifically, I'm thinking of the Winnebago 3rd plural suffix =ire. This apparently conditions a-grade ablaut after active verbs ending in -e, as /xe/ + /=ire/ => /xaire/. I have the sense, however, that this does not hold for stative verbs. Thus, if a verb /###e/ is stative, we should get /###e/ + /=ire/ => /###eire/. I'm not sure yet if this is a solid rule or not. It's possible that the one word I've seen in that format was a specialized international term that was incorporated whole without ablauting simply because ablauting was no longer a productive rule. I'm hoping the Hocank specialists can give us a definite answer on this question. (Johannes Helmbrecht has been very generous with his help to a Hocank tyro already!) Rory From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Jun 21 20:32:37 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:32:37 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go back to *r. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > John wrote: > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > situations. > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > my ointment! However, > > Bob wrote: > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > what it contrasts with. > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > MVS: =i(*r)e > | > --------------------- > | | > | Dh: =i(*r)e > | | > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > | | > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > have: > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > ablaut in this case. > > > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > correct? > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > There is presumably some subtle difference in > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > The process is similar to English "should have" > first being slurred to "should've" and then > reconstructed as "should of". > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > behind a few traces of its original presence in > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > This is what will have happened in OP. > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jun 21 21:49:53 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:49:53 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: I think it is Proto-Siouan *y that becomes ch in Dakotan, zh in Dhegiha, etc. Proto-Siouan *r becomes Dakotan y~l~n. Epenthesis at different times has yielded different results. Older epentheses seem to yield reflexes of *r while new ones yield reflexes [y] and [w] both. Also, we need to remember that in Dakotan, the *r that is inserted after possessive i- shows y-like reflexes. We explain a number of strange Dakotan ch's like 'ice' in this manner as I recall. I'm in Bloomington and don't have my notes with me though. But I think 'kettle' is another. These are the result of *ir sequences as I recall though. Bob -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Sent: 6/21/2003 3:32 PM Subject: Re: epenthetic glide. Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go back to *r. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > John wrote: > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > situations. > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > my ointment! However, > > Bob wrote: > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > what it contrasts with. > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > MVS: =i(*r)e > | > --------------------- > | | > | Dh: =i(*r)e > | | > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > | | > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > have: > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > ablaut in this case. > > > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > correct? > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > There is presumably some subtle difference in > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > The process is similar to English "should have" > first being slurred to "should've" and then > reconstructed as "should of". > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > behind a few traces of its original presence in > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > This is what will have happened in OP. > > Rory > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Jun 22 01:14:15 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:14:15 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: That Lakhota "kaga" would actually be /kagha/, wouldn't it? And the /kichagha/ would then correspond directly to OP /giaghe/? Rory ROOD DAVID S cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: epenthetic glide. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 06/21/2003 03:32 PM Please respond to siouan Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go back to *r. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > John wrote: > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > situations. > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > my ointment! However, > > Bob wrote: > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > what it contrasts with. > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > MVS: =i(*r)e > | > --------------------- > | | > | Dh: =i(*r)e > | | > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > | | > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > have: > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > ablaut in this case. > > > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > correct? > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > There is presumably some subtle difference in > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > The process is similar to English "should have" > first being slurred to "should've" and then > reconstructed as "should of". > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > behind a few traces of its original presence in > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > This is what will have happened in OP. > > Rory > > From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun Jun 22 03:11:40 2003 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:11:40 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For the sake of comparison I'll throw this in. I checked this Lakhota anomaly for Assiniboine and found the regular form 'kicag^a', i.e., no aspiration: waxpe mijijag^a 'he made tea for me' It would be interesting to know whether aspiration was introduced into the Lakhota form or if Assiniboine leveled the anomaly. Jundging from David's comments I'd guess the latter. I have found several instances where Lakhota irregularities are regular in Assiniboine. This is one case, another (which has nothing to do with epenthetic glides, but supports my growing sense that there has been a lot of leveling in Asb) is the paradigm for yutA 'eat', which is a completely regular y-stem in Assiniboine (note: Asb does not ablaut word finally): Asb: Lak: 1s mnuta wate 2s nuta yate 3s yuta yute 1pl uNyutapi uNyuta pi 2pl nutapi yata pi 3pl yutapi yuta pi Linda ------------------- > > Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the > rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita > in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. > > I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of > IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to > figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an > irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). > What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and > the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the > initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies > would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go > back to *r. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > > > > John wrote: > > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > > situations. > > > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > > my ointment! However, > > > > Bob wrote: > > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > > what it contrasts with. > > > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > > > MVS: =i(*r)e > > | > > --------------------- > > | | > > | Dh: =i(*r)e > > | | > > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > > | | > > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > > have: > > > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > > ablaut in this case. > > > > > > John wrote: > > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > > enye before i). > > > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > > correct? > > > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > > There is presumably some subtle difference in > > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > > The process is similar to English "should have" > > first being slurred to "should've" and then > > reconstructed as "should of". > > > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > > behind a few traces of its original presence in > > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > > This is what will have happened in OP. > > > > Rory > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Jun 22 06:26:00 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:26:00 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: <200306220311.WAA15397@indiana.edu> Message-ID: Answering both Rory and Linda: Rory, I use the letter "g" between vowels in Lakhota for the voiced velar fricative, the voiced equivalent of IPA [x]. In printed materials, that "g" usually has a dot over it. I suspect that's what you mean by "gh", so I think the answer to your question is yes. Linda, in Lakhota there is a contrast between kichaga and kicaga. The former is only the suus form (he made his own); the first person of that paradigm is we*chage, 'I made mine'. The latter, regular form is the dative; its first person from would be wakicage. 'I made it for her'. Your example is a dative, so it would be regular "kicage" in Lakhota, too. The observation that I made in that little paper in 1985 is that Lak. and Dhegiha both have one highly irregular paradigm and one quite regular paradigm which seem to use the "ki (gi in Dhegiha)" prefix. In Lak., the irregular one is the suus, the regular one the dative for most verbs, whereas in Dhegiha it's the other way around: the suus is the more regular one. So I think the historically formal Dhegiha correspondent with kichaga is giaghe, as Rory says, but the two words do not mean the same thing. I don't know what the suus form would be in Omaha. Anyway, the historical challenge is to figure out how this apparent flip-flop in meanings could occur, as well as explaining the c/ch contrast. I proposed that the "ch" is not derived from the "k" of the stem but rather, as in Dhegiha, from a form in which the "k" had been deleted. Hence the Lakhota evolution is something like **kiage > *kiyage > kichage, and the synchronic idea that "k" > "ch" in this verb is an illusion, and there was no "introduction of aspiration". Hence the comment that "ch" is in some sense "epenthetic" here. As for the meaning flip-flop, I only pointed out the observation in Boas and Deloria that these two paradigms get mixed up even in Lakhota, varying from verb to verb and even from speaker family to speaker family as to whether the regular one is dative or suus or whether there even is a contrast. I said this a lot more clearly in the paper, I think. It's less than 3 pages long if you want to dig it out. Two theories about Assiniboine: (1) they may have neutralized the two paradigms, dropping the irregular one, as has happened in many Lakhota verbs, or (2) you may not have elicited the suus forms (they don't come up very often in real life). I suppose it's also possible that they never developed the irregular one, but that would require that Lak. and Assinib. had separated before the suus froms evolved, which would be longer ago than I think is likely. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Linda Cumberland wrote: > For the sake of comparison I'll throw this in. I checked this Lakhota > anomaly for Assiniboine and found the regular form 'kicag^a', i.e., no > aspiration: > > waxpe mijijag^a 'he made tea for me' > > It would be interesting to know whether aspiration was introduced into > the Lakhota form or if Assiniboine leveled the anomaly. Jundging from > David's comments I'd guess the latter. I have found several instances > where Lakhota irregularities are regular in Assiniboine. This is one > case, another (which has nothing to do with epenthetic glides, but > supports my growing sense that there has been a lot of leveling in > Asb) is the paradigm for yutA 'eat', which is a completely regular > y-stem in Assiniboine (note: Asb does not ablaut word finally): > > Asb: Lak: > > 1s mnuta wate > 2s nuta yate > 3s yuta yute > 1pl uNyutapi uNyuta pi > 2pl nutapi yata pi > 3pl yutapi yuta pi > > Linda > ------------------- > > > > Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read > the > > rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing > Wichita > > in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. > > > > I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue > of > > IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was > to > > figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has > an > > irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected > kicaga). > > What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, > and > > the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the > > initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative > chronologies > > would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem > to go > > back to *r. > > > > David S. Rood > > Dept. of Linguistics > > Univ. of Colorado > > 295 UCB > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > USA > > rood at colorado.edu > > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > > > > > > > John wrote: > > > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in > Proto-Mississippi > > > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for > epenthetic > > > > situations. > > > > > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > > > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > > > my ointment! However, > > > > > > Bob wrote: > > > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > > > what it contrasts with. > > > > > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > > > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > > > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > > > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > > > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > > > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > > > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > > > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > > > > > MVS: =i(*r)e > > > | > > > --------------------- > > > | | > > > | Dh: =i(*r)e > > > | | > > > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > > > | | > > > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > > > > > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > > > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > > > have: > > > > > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > > > > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > > > > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > > > > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > > > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > > > ablaut in this case. > > > > > > > > > John wrote: > > > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd > have to > > > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - > pronounced with > > > > enye before i). > > > > > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > > > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > > > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > > > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > > > > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was > generalized > > > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from > the third, > > > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that > have it. > > > > > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > > > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > > > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > > > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > > > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > > > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > > > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > > > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > > > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > > > correct? > > > > > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > > > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > > > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > > > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > > > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > > > There is presumably some subtle difference in > > > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > > > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > > > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > > > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > > > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > > > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > > > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > > > The process is similar to English "should have" > > > first being slurred to "should've" and then > > > reconstructed as "should of". > > > > > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > > > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > > > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > > > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > > > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > > > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > > > behind a few traces of its original presence in > > > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > > > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > > > > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > > > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > > > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > > > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > > > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > > > This is what will have happened in OP. > > > > > > Rory > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Jun 22 18:01:08 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:01:08 -0600 Subject: correction and regrets Message-ID: First, Jan Ullrich has pointed out to me that I cited a non-existent form in my email at midnight last night. The dative first person of 'to make' in Lakhota is wecage, not the wakicage that I made up (that does not exist). It's still the case that there is a contrast between the -ch- suus forms and the -c- dative forms, however. Thanks, Jan, for setting the record straight. Second, I regret that I will be unable to attend the conference again this year. I had hoped that we would agree to meet in July, but that wasn't the wish of most of us. I have family obligations from July 26-Aug. 16 that will keep me at home. Best wishes to all who attend for another useful and friendly meeting. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jun 22 22:37:20 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:37:20 -0500 Subject: glides, etc. Message-ID: Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe Lak. kichagha < *ki-r-agha where prefixal [ir] > [ich] in numerous forms as mentioned yesterday. Dakotan kicagha or AS gijagha would have to be from earlier *kikagha. So David was exactly right about the source of aspirated [ch] in the one form, except that the *iy that gives his ich is from the sequence *ir preaccentually and is a normal reflex of such a sequence. Right? Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 23 09:49:33 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:49:33 -0600 Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: (Basic stem) > Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. (Suus stem) > Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem) Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem). OP *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative stem. Here are the comparisons that seem to me to work best. Category PMV? La OP Base 1 *p- kaghE wa-kaghA p- paghE 2 *s^-kaghE ya-kaghA s^-kaghE 3 kaghE kaghA gaghE Suus 1 *wa-ki-k-kaghE we-c^haghA a-gi-p- paghE 2 *ra-ki-k-kaghE ye-c^haghA dha-gi-s^-kaghe 3 *ki-k-kaghE ki-c^haghA gi-k- kaghE Dat 1 *wa-ki-kaghE we-c^aghA e-p- paghE 2 *ra-ki-kaghE ye-c^aghA dhe-s^-kaghE 3 ki-kaghE ki-c^aghA gi- aghE Although the regular datives and possessives are, as David notes, reversed in form between Dakotan and Omaha-Ponca (and Southern Dhegiha and IO-Winnebago show additional patterns), their datives and suus actually match pretty well for consonant-initial stems. The following developments elucidate matters here: - Dakotan loses the consonant initial pattern with the basic transitive stem of this verb, and transfers it to the regular paradigm. - Dakota, of course, affricates k to c^ after i, and kh to c^h, etc. - In the first person of the basic transitive Dhegiha assimilates the initial k of the stem to the *p (or *w or *b) of the first person, so the first person comes out p-paghe, instead of, say, *k-kaghe or *p-kaghe. - In the Suus (or Possessive) stem this verb has always had *ki reduced to k- (as *wa and *ra, earlier *ya, reduce to *p and *s^, and this *k- has been supplemented by adding a regular *ki- to the front of it, producing a prefixal pattern *ki-k- that appears throughout the suus forms of Dhegiha and (less obviously) in Dakotan. - Dakota contracts the pronouns with the underlying ki in the suus, as Omaha-Ponca (but not Southern Dhegiha) does in the Dative, leading to we-, ye- instead of *wa-ki-, *ya-ki and e-, dhe- instead of *a-gi-, *dha-gi-. - OP inflects the suus and dative of consonant-stems doubly. Withhout going into the details, I think this arises in two slightly different ways. With the suus it is analogical and replaces earlier *a-gi-k-, *dha-gi-k-, *gi-k- with a-gi-p-, dha-gi-s^-, gi-k-, however that would work out for the particular kind of consonant stems. The analogies are much clearer if you look at the full set of forms. In some cases (*p- and *t-stems) only the second person actually changes. With the dative it's a result of applying the regular dative over the basic transitive. - The contraction of *gi-gaghe to gi-aghe in the third person of the datives looks like it might be a transfer (i.e., a contamination) from the pattern of the dative of *ka-instrumentals, which look like they lose initial *k throughout and loses it also in the first and second persons of the basic transitive. Comparisons with Crow and Hisatsa suggest that this instrumental is really something like *raka (third person) ~ *aka (first and second persons), however. - Actually, though I've been taking the traditional point of view, that both the suus and dative have *ki, only these two *ki's behave differently in each language, there's a pretty good chance that the dative was something like *riki ~ *iki (patterning like the *raka- instrumental) instead of *ki. This seems to work better than assuming two identical morphemes being kept separate by a series of desperate morphological expedients. Unfortunately, I don't think *riki- is actually attested anywhere, unlike *raka- which is. - So, if you're still with me, to bring a long story to a sudden ending, the source of c^h in the suus of Dakotan - I guess I should say Teton - *k-stems (kagha 'to make', kuNza 'to decree') is probably *k-k-/*ki-__, not *y, though the latter does (also) become c^h. In Dhegiha the *k-k- sequence is indistinguishable from *hk-, i.e., it become kk or hk, depending on the language's phonetics. The same is true, in fact, of all *CC (or *hC) sequences, where C is a stop. However, all *hC (where C is a stop) become *Ch in Dakotan, cf. OP kke 'turtle' vs. Dakotan khe(ya), etc. And thanks to the pleonastic *ki- preceding our *k-k-, that kh is after a Ce (< *Ca-(k)i-) or ki- that affricates it to c^h. I say this with a certain amount of deference, because the morphological context is complex, even if the phonology is simple, and because I really hate to contradict one (actually two) of my favorite teachers, but I think all of the logic applied holds water, and it does eliminate an otherwise troublesome exceptional case in the development of Dakotan epenthesis. Note that I have accidentally cited a probable additional example of -y- epenthesis < *r in Dakotan in the form of kheya < *hke-r-a, where -a is the -a of s^uNk-a, cf. heya < *he-r-a (OP he), wiNyaN 'woman' < wiN-r-a (OP miN), and a few other examples. In this last case the historical stem is probably *wiNh-, but the h is lost in Mississippi Valley. > Lak. kichagha < *ki-r-agha where prefixal [ir] > [ich] in numerous > forms as mentioned yesterday. Those are an interesting collection of forms - a group of forms, mostly inalienable, hence with prefixes *wi/*ri/*i - that have c^h (< *y) where Dhegiha has reflexes of *r. I necessarily take them to be something different. My suspicion is that Dakota is right about *y, and that Dhegiha popped those *y into the epenthetic *-y- > *-r- set irregularly, merging them with the real *r- forms. Since most Siouan languages brutally merge all *y and *r into one segment more or less *r-like, this is not too surprising. It's worth noting that the second person pronoun has a similar problem. We're pretty sure from Southeastern that it was *ya, and this seems consistant with *s^- as the short form of the second person (< *y-?). But all of the MV languages that distinguish *y and *r plop for *ra as the second person (Dakotan ya-, not *c^ha-; Dhegiha dha-, not *z^a-, though z^- does show up with Dh ?-stems, suggesting that Da n- there is contamination from the *r-stems). In this case Dakotan agrees with Dhegiha (and, of course *ra- > ya- in Dakotan). But notice that the contraction of *w-yi- in the A1P2 form is c^hi < *yi- in Dakotan. Of course, Dhegiha unhelpfully has wi- < *w-yi-, maybe via w-ii-? By analogy with Dakotan you'd expect *z^i-, but you don't get it. And IO and Winnebago are no help either, since they merge *y and *r, and have ri(i)- and niNiN-, respectively. IO does have occasional y < *y (via *z^, maybe, since that also becomes y), but only in a few places, and not here. However, Mandan comes through with miNniN- < *w-yi(N)-, for which I have always been profoundly grateful! Note that the nasalization of the second person patient form comes and goes across Siouan. I suspect it's secondary, perhaps by analogy with the first person patient *waN- which does seem to be nasal. I hope this helps more than it off-puts [incorporation with fronting] JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 06:37:37 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:37:37 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: <200306220311.WAA15397@indiana.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Linda Cumberland wrote: > It would be interesting to know whether aspiration was introduced into > the Lakhota form or if Assiniboine leveled the anomaly. Jundging from > David's comments I'd guess the latter. I'd argue the same even deriving the aspiration from *hk representing syncopated *k(i)-k... in *ki-k(i)-kaghA > I have found several instances where Lakhota irregularities are > regular in Assiniboine. This is one case, another (which has nothing > to do with epenthetic glides, but supports my growing sense that there > has been a lot of leveling in Asb) is the paradigm for yutA 'eat', > which is a completely regular y-stem in Assiniboine (note: Asb does > not ablaut word finally): > > Asb: Lak: > > 1s mnuta wate > 2s nuta yate > 3s yuta yute > 1pl uNyutapi uNyuta pi > 2pl nutapi yata pi > 3pl yutapi yuta pi I suspect this also leveled. As I recall Winnebago has 1 haac^ < *wa-te 2 raac^ < *ra-te 3 ruuc^ < *rute However, Dhegiha as a whole simply loses this suppletive stem for 'eat'. Though that is a case of negative evidence, it seems plausible that part of the explanation for the loss is the irregularity of this stem. Isn't the pattern rounded out with wotA for the detransitivized stem? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 07:33:15 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:33:15 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I think it is Proto-Siouan *y that becomes ch in Dakotan, zh in Dhegiha, > etc. Proto-Siouan *r becomes Dakotan y~l~n. True, although, it might be more precise to say that *r becomes Dakotan y and Dhegiha dh (with special developments in some dialects, i.e., d in Quapaw and y in Kaw). It's *R that becomes Dakotan l ~ d ~ n and Dhegiha n (OP), t ~ c (merger with *t) (Os), and so on. But *r develops as *R in certain clusters, i.e., s^r in Dakotan and Dhegiha and *pr (or *wr or *br) in Dakotan, but not Dhegiha (except in nouns). Dakotan, of course, loses s^ in *s^R < *s^r in the second persons of *r-stems, and OP does between the 1880s and today. So, you find in 'to go': PMV La OP Os *p-re ble bdhe bre (bdhe, but with dh like an r in context) *s^-re le (s^)ne sce *re ye dhe dhe And you can compare these with *pre ble ne ce 'lake' *Rez^e lez^e nez^e cez^e 'urine' The observation that *R behaves like *r in some clusters is presumably what led Kaufman to reconstruct *?r for the *R correspondence, where ? (an apostrophe - glottal stop) is something like the old Bloomfield theta in Algonquian, as is R, really. The *R correspondence was first noticed by Dorsey, but I think thereafter neglected until Kaufman. I first noticed it in Dorsey's Comparative Phonology, in spite of having earlier seen Kaufman's *?r, and originally thought it might be a development of an allophone of *t (matched by *W for *p). > Epenthesis at different times has yielded different results. Older > epentheses seem to yield reflexes of *r while new ones yield reflexes > [y] and [w] both. Also, we need to remember that in Dakotan, the *r > that is inserted after possessive i- shows y-like reflexes. We > explain a number of strange Dakotan ch's like 'ice' in this manner as > I recall. I'm in Bloomington and don't have my notes with me though. > But I think 'kettle' is another. These are the result of *ir > sequences as I recall though. These are not the sets I was thinking of. Here we have La OP 'ice' c^hagha nughe 'pot' ch^egha neghe Here Dakotan is the odd man out, with c^h < *y in sets where others like OP show *R (or *wr, cf. Cr bilaxa and buluxa). The 'ice' set in particular tends to accumulate nasal vowel variants instead of *o. I've sometimes wondered if Teton legha 'glittering; might not be a better match for the 'pot' set. The Dakotan forms simply look like they don't belong, but you have to wonder. The sets I was thinking of were like: 'heart' c^haNte naNde I was arguing that these derived from original forms like *i-yaNt- '(one's) heart', which in PMV dialects underlying Dhegiha was interpreted as **i-y-aNte and underwent rhotacism to *i-r-aNte. Subsequently, with widespread loss of inalienable inflection of body parts, some PMV dialects had *yaNt-e, while others had *raNt-e. We can suspect that the *-e is separable here, because some dialects evidently had *yaNt-ka or *raNt-ka (cf. Winnebago naNaNc^ge). Forms like 'ice' and 'pot' could be handled similarly, assuming inalienable senses like '(one's) pot' or '(it's) congealed skin' (or water), but the hitch here is that these forms do not consistently show nasal vowels, so there is nothing to explain OP n, for example. And, in fact, the 'heart' forms have reflexes of *r/ _VN, while 'ice' and 'pot have reflexes of *R/ _V(oral). They just look similar in OP. JEK From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 24 16:35:16 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:35:16 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Isn't the pattern rounded out with wotA for the detransitivized stem? This one is slightly more regular, but with variation from speaker to speaker. I usually hear wowate, woyate, wote, wo'uNyutapi, but Buechel's grammar gives wawate, wayate, wote, wauNyutapi (with wauNtapi in parentheses -- I assume the absence of the glottal stop in the Buechel citations won't puzzle anyone; he simply didn't write it between vowels). There are a number of other words that indicate an old rule converting ayu to o, which explains the third person form, but the others are clearly re-analyzed from that or re-derived from the transitive forms. David From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jun 24 16:59:45 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:59:45 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: "heart" goes back to PSI *y probably, given the OVS cognates. Even there the distinction *r/*y may be neutralized after *i-. I'll have to get home before I can retrieve that info. In the other cases like 'ice', 'kettle', etc. it may help to look at the Ofo cognate to see if there was an initial syllable. The fact that Dakotan has initial syll accent strongly suggests an earlier initial syllable or a long vowel (or both), neither of which is recoverable internally in Dakotan as far as we know. [?r} is attested as a source of *R in a few instances in Mandan where no other language preserves traces of a cluster. But not even MA has a cluster in some instances. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu ' Sent: 6/24/2003 2:33 AM Subject: RE: epenthetic glide. On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I think it is Proto-Siouan *y that becomes ch in Dakotan, zh in Dhegiha, > etc. Proto-Siouan *r becomes Dakotan y~l~n. True, although, it might be more precise to say that *r becomes Dakotan y and Dhegiha dh (with special developments in some dialects, i.e., d in Quapaw and y in Kaw). It's *R that becomes Dakotan l ~ d ~ n and Dhegiha n (OP), t ~ c (merger with *t) (Os), and so on. But *r develops as *R in certain clusters, i.e., s^r in Dakotan and Dhegiha and *pr (or *wr or *br) in Dakotan, but not Dhegiha (except in nouns). Dakotan, of course, loses s^ in *s^R < *s^r in the second persons of *r-stems, and OP does between the 1880s and today. So, you find in 'to go': PMV La OP Os *p-re ble bdhe bre (bdhe, but with dh like an r in context) *s^-re le (s^)ne sce *re ye dhe dhe And you can compare these with *pre ble ne ce 'lake' *Rez^e lez^e nez^e cez^e 'urine' The observation that *R behaves like *r in some clusters is presumably what led Kaufman to reconstruct *?r for the *R correspondence, where ? (an apostrophe - glottal stop) is something like the old Bloomfield theta in Algonquian, as is R, really. The *R correspondence was first noticed by Dorsey, but I think thereafter neglected until Kaufman. I first noticed it in Dorsey's Comparative Phonology, in spite of having earlier seen Kaufman's *?r, and originally thought it might be a development of an allophone of *t (matched by *W for *p). > Epenthesis at different times has yielded different results. Older > epentheses seem to yield reflexes of *r while new ones yield reflexes > [y] and [w] both. Also, we need to remember that in Dakotan, the *r > that is inserted after possessive i- shows y-like reflexes. We > explain a number of strange Dakotan ch's like 'ice' in this manner as > I recall. I'm in Bloomington and don't have my notes with me though. > But I think 'kettle' is another. These are the result of *ir > sequences as I recall though. These are not the sets I was thinking of. Here we have La OP 'ice' c^hagha nughe 'pot' ch^egha neghe Here Dakotan is the odd man out, with c^h < *y in sets where others like OP show *R (or *wr, cf. Cr bilaxa and buluxa). The 'ice' set in particular tends to accumulate nasal vowel variants instead of *o. I've sometimes wondered if Teton legha 'glittering; might not be a better match for the 'pot' set. The Dakotan forms simply look like they don't belong, but you have to wonder. The sets I was thinking of were like: 'heart' c^haNte naNde I was arguing that these derived from original forms like *i-yaNt- '(one's) heart', which in PMV dialects underlying Dhegiha was interpreted as **i-y-aNte and underwent rhotacism to *i-r-aNte. Subsequently, with widespread loss of inalienable inflection of body parts, some PMV dialects had *yaNt-e, while others had *raNt-e. We can suspect that the *-e is separable here, because some dialects evidently had *yaNt-ka or *raNt-ka (cf. Winnebago naNaNc^ge). Forms like 'ice' and 'pot' could be handled similarly, assuming inalienable senses like '(one's) pot' or '(it's) congealed skin' (or water), but the hitch here is that these forms do not consistently show nasal vowels, so there is nothing to explain OP n, for example. And, in fact, the 'heart' forms have reflexes of *r/ _VN, while 'ice' and 'pot have reflexes of *R/ _V(oral). They just look similar in OP. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jun 24 17:08:53 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:08:53 -0500 Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Sent: 6/23/2003 4:49 AM Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: (Basic stem) > Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. (Suus stem) > Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem) Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem). OP *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative stem. AND the reconstructed form for the OM dative, though, so ultimately we have to deal with the -g- as part of the problem. It's "there"; you just can't see it. :-) I defer to most of John's paradigmatic analyses/reconstructions, as he's done quite a lot of this for a variety of meetings. I have comments on the *r/*R distinction in the paper I did on the comparative method for the handbook of Hist. Ling. Basically, it's one of those "you can nearly get rid of it" cases familiar from Indo-European. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 17:46:41 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:46:41 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > This one is slightly more regular, but with variation from speaker > to speaker. I usually hear wowate, woyate, wote, wo'uNyutapi, but > Buechel's grammar gives wawate, wayate, wote, wauNyutapi (with wauNtapi in > parentheses -- I assume the absence of the glottal stop in the Buechel > citations won't puzzle anyone; he simply didn't write it between vowels). > There are a number of other words that indicate an old rule converting ayu > to o, which explains the third person form, but the others are clearly > re-analyzed from that or re-derived from the transitive forms. OK, I was wondering where o in wote came from. I was trying to decide if wote involved the o-locative or somehting. But if wo- < wayu-, that suggests that wo- occurs potentially with all yu-instrumental verbs, doesn't it? I was wondering if there was something special about this verb, like maybe an undelrying stem *utA. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 18:13:36 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:36 -0600 Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > (Basic stem) > Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe > (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. > (Suus stem) > Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem) > > Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem). OP > *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative > stem. > > AND the reconstructed form for the OM dative, though, so ultimately we have > to deal with the -g- as part of the problem. It's "there"; you just can't > see it. :-) I certainly agree with that - I just thought we were wondering about surface forms. Incidentally, this is the stem where "Southern Dhegiha" (using that term quite informally at this point) has as the dative stem khighe or ks^ighe, as this comes out in Osage and, I think, Kaw, the Quapaw version being unknown. That stem is then inflected regularly. > I have comments on the *r/*R distinction in the paper I did on the > comparative method for the handbook of Hist. Ling. Basically, it's one of > those "you can nearly get rid of it" cases familiar from Indo-European. You can come close to getting rid of it in the *R/t direction, too. That "you can nearly get rid of it" characterization applies widely to various Siouan language phonemes, for that matter. The reasons I like to point out the cases where *r merges with *R in clusters are (1) it must tell us something about the phonetics of *R, though I'm not sure just what. Maybe *r is trilled, but *R is tapped? Also, (2) it seems to be overlooking something to carry the same set of reflexes along in (some) *Cr clusters and the *R sets without saying something about it. Finally, (3) it looks to me, when this behavior of *Cr is arranged tabularly, as if there is a sort of cline of increased *r > *R behavior across the dialects in Mississippi Valley. JEK From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 24 18:33:10 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:33:10 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There are other instances of -ayu- > o, probably with other yu- instrumental verbs, as you suggest -- I can't check for them right now, however. The rule does seem to be an old one; newer forms have wayu without any alteration. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > This one is slightly more regular, but with variation from speaker > > to speaker. I usually hear wowate, woyate, wote, wo'uNyutapi, but > > Buechel's grammar gives wawate, wayate, wote, wauNyutapi (with wauNtapi in > > parentheses -- I assume the absence of the glottal stop in the Buechel > > citations won't puzzle anyone; he simply didn't write it between vowels). > > There are a number of other words that indicate an old rule converting ayu > > to o, which explains the third person form, but the others are clearly > > re-analyzed from that or re-derived from the transitive forms. > > OK, I was wondering where o in wote came from. I was trying to decide if > wote involved the o-locative or somehting. But if wo- < wayu-, that > suggests that wo- occurs potentially with all yu-instrumental verbs, > doesn't it? I was wondering if there was something special about this > verb, like maybe an undelrying stem *utA. > > JEK > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 18:51:05 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:51:05 -0600 Subject: 'ice' and 'pot' (RE: epenthetic glide.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > In the other cases like 'ice', 'kettle', etc. it may help to look at > the Ofo cognate to see if there was an initial syllable. For 'ice' the only SE cognate is Tutelo noNxi. For 'pot' (under 'kettle') Biloxi and Tutelo have various longer forms in initial yes- and the CSD offers PSE *yes-. The Dhegiha forms are PDh *Ree'ghe OP ne'ghe, Kaw c^ee'ghe, Os ce'ghe. For Winnebago-Chiwere PWC *Ree'xe, IO de'xe, Wi dee'x. Presumably all these vowels should have been heard long, though the sources don't always support that. Dakotan has c^hegha, of course, and Mandan we'rex(e) (without or without the e-absolute marker). CH is PCH *wira'xa, Cr bila'xa, Hi wira'xa. The CSD offers *yeSE as a reconstruction, where S indicates fricative symbolism grades, and E signifies that the final vowel is the e ~ a set of disputed nature. If PS were actually *wVyeS-, maybe *wiyes-, that might explain a lot. We don't know alot about PMV *py (*wy) < PS *wVy-, but there is this. The inflection of *DEM=...ye 'to think' (Da epc^a 'I think', a "defective" stem in traditional temrinology - with only this first person; OP ebdhe(gaN)) shows that Dakota py for *wy and Dhegiha has *bdh. A few noun sets with *py and *ky show that Dakota tends to lose initial p in pc^, so PrePDa *wyegha might well come out pc^hegha ~ c^hegha. Dhegiha has bdh for *pr in verb inflection and verb stems, but *R in nouns in initial position, as in ne 'lake' vs. Da (Te) ble. If Dh treats *py as *pr in all contexts, then PrePDH *wyeghe would come out *Reghe. Since WC works like Dh wrt *wr (and, I think also *wy), it has *Rexe. CH has forms like PCH *wiraxa, where it looks like x has lowered preceding e. Maybe SE lacks wi- before *y? This doesn't help with Dhegiha wi- < *w-yi A1-P2 in transitive verbs. It looks like those should have *Ri-, which they don't. This argument is not entirely new, as the Bob's discussions show. I think this might be one of those cases where the editors didn't quite get their ideas into the reconstruction. Anyway, this is certainly a case where it pays to notice that *R reflexes are sometimes fairly late developments of *r (or *y) in clusters. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 25 15:40:23 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:40:23 -0600 Subject: Clarification *wy- and 'think' (Re: 'ice' and 'pot') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > ... We don't know a lot about PMV *py (*wy) < PS *wVy-, but there is > this. The inflection of *DEM=...ye 'to think' (Da epc^a 'I think', a > "defective" stem in traditional temrinology - with only this first > person; OP ebdhe(gaN)) shows that Dakota py for *wy and Dhegiha has > *bdh. A few noun sets with *py and *ky show that Dakota tends to lose > initial p in pc^, so PrePDa *wyegha might well come out pc^hegha ~ > c^hegha. Between a typo concerning Dakotan py (actually pc^ ~ c^h) for *wy (*py, *by, all non-contrasting, at most conceptual variants) and lack of detail, I don't think this was very clear. What I was trying to say is that, while Siouan has abundant evidence of *wr (*pr, *br), we have only limited evidence for *wy. However, there is a verb, something like *DEM=...ye, e.g., *e=...ye, 'to think' (of a quotation), that shows that there was such a cluster. In Dhegiha this behaves like an *r-stem, with the first person ebdhe- for the stem edhe-, for example, in OP. Actually, in OP this verb has to be followed by egaN 'like that', so the attested forms are ebdh=e'gaN, edh=e'gaN. I take egaN here to be acting like an adverbial modifier "sort of" so that historically the construction is "I sorta think that ..." and so on. In Dakotan this stem is defective, i.e., existing only in some of the potential forms, in particular, only in the first person, which is epc^a. Since c^h is normally a refex of *y, this is probably from *e-p-yA, i.e., it is a *y-stem instead of an *r-stem. So, although Dhegiha does usually distinguish *y and *r, it doesn't do so in this case. In fact, since the third person is not expected *e-z^e < *e-ye then we'd have to call the third person irregular and analogical (first person ebdhe < *epye => third person edhe), except that we could probably also argue that this is a case of intervocalic *-y- treated as epenthetic and so developing as *-r-. But as only some intervocalic *-y- develop in that way, we can see that a certain amount of analogy or abstraction of some sort has to be involved here, one way or another. About the best we can do here is to point out that *y in *e=ye is always intervocalic, because of the proclitic demonstrative, while in other cases it is either always initial, or at least occasionally initial. In any event, alerted by the case of 'think', we can discover a few other cases of *wy (*py, *by), one of which is apparently 'mosquito', which was something like *pyaphuNka, leading to Dakotan c^haphuN'ka, but OP na'haNga. Here Dakotan has c^h rather than pc^. We are aided in understanding *py by the behavior of *ky, e.g., *kye'praN 'ten' as in Dakotan (wi)kc^e'mna vs. OP gdhe'baN (earlier gdhebdhaN), or *kye'taN 'hawk' as in Dakotan c^hetaN' vs. OP gdhe'daN. Here *ky > kc^ ~ c^h in Dakotan, but gdh in OP. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jun 27 16:17:55 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:17:55 -0500 Subject: More "ablaut". Message-ID: > That would certainly be the gold standard. I wonder > though if you would be willing to bend the *same verb* > rule just a little bit here. Well, evidence always accumulates slowly, and, naturally the truly "minimal" distinctions emerge more slowly than near-minimal ones sometimes. With "ablaut" affecting every -e stem verb though, I'd expect to find massive cases of such minimal meaning distinctions if -e/-a really has any morphemic status at all. Not only have I not found a lot -- I haven't found any at all. But I'm not working with Omaha, so I defer to those of you who are. Looking at the problem as a comparatist, I don't see much evidence within Dhegiha. Winnebago could be different in detail, but, since it's Mississippi Valley Siouan, not different in principle. I can't explain the use of -a with -ire since that particular suffix (or suffixeS) doesn't have obvious reflexes in Dhegiha or Dakotan. The Hochunkers among us will have to deal with that over time. There are a lot of post-verbal enclitics (or suffixes) in Dakotan that interact with "ablaut". Since most of them lack cognates in other MVS groups, I've assumed, maybe wrongly, that they all came into use in Dakotan after -a had spread analogically in the Dakotan subgroup. It's the forms with the cognates across MVS that tell the tale; the others aren't talking to me right now. And WI -ire is one of them. :-) Bob (back in Kansas now). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 04:29:08 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:29:08 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference Message-ID: Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month and half? JEK From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed Jun 11 05:37:06 2003 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:37:06 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's what I thought. Michigan State, isn't it? I've been planning to go. Has there been a change of plans? Mary Marino At 10:29 PM 6/10/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month >and half? > >JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 06:03:14 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:03:14 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: About a month and a half ago, just before my life became an apparently unending sequence of Income Tax forms, miscellaneous and alarmingly past-due deadlines, and, more recently and pleasantly, cheering at junior girls' softball games, Rory Larson had posted a a very long (about 17K) and thoughtful discussion of Dhegiha proximates and plurals. As I am way behind on acknowledging Rory's postings, I thought I could do far worse than to return from the (apparently) dead to tackle some aspects of it. On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Rory wrote: > I'd like to revise my position slightly from what I was > arguing when first grappling with this. First, the dichotomy > between =i and =bi is quite regular in the Dorsey texts. If the > verb is followed by =i, the speaker is asserting it on his own > account as the straight goods. If the verb is followed by =bi, > it means that the speaker is absolving himself of responsibility > for the implication of what he has just said. Thus, =bi is > regularly used in reporting hearsay, or in describing a former > hypothesis. In the latter role, it may cover supposition or > expectation ("supposed to"). I think I've stated before that I am more and more convinced that this does explain the opposition of =i and =bi in Omaha-Ponca texts and, on presume, in conversation, though there are some additional special cases like names and songs where =bi appears. As Rory points out subsequently - I may not make it that far this evening - it might be possible to regard these as special cases of quotative usage, stipulating that this term is not perhaps used ideally in Siouan grammatical terminology. Was it reportative that was considered the better term? > In third person declarative statements, neither =i nor =bi > normally has anything to do with plurality. They do indicate > that the concept is complete rather than progressive, That is, progressives are formed by adding one of the positional forms that serve also as definite articles, and this positional follows a verb that ends in the stem final vowel, without any sign of =i ~ =bi. > and that it is independent of outside influence. Does this refer to sporadic comments in Dorsey's footnotes, especially in Dorsey 1891 that certain forms without =i would be this because the action must have been performed at someone else's behest? > In commands, and in statements and exhortations that use the potential > particle /tte/, =i at least signals plurality. Typically, of course, =tte is followed by a positional, but it does occur without it in a sort of precative or exortative sense that Dorsey tends to gloss 'you will please' as in i'=dhadhe=tte you will please send it hither D90:689.10 udha'gdha?a?a=tta=i ha you will (please) give the scalp yell D90:15.12 > There are a few very rare, but illuminating cases, however, in which > =i is replaced by =bi in these contexts. Referring now to imperatives in =ga (IMPm), rather than precatives. > Usually, you command a group of people in the form: V=i ga! But if > you are conveying someone else's command, you can cast it in the form: > N V=bi ga!, where N is the name of the party whose command you are > conveying! I think the only examples are instances of maNc^hu is^ta'z^ide uihe thi=dha=bi=ga hau Red-eyed Grizzly Bear to join pass along DECLm Go to REGB to fetch the meat! D90:43.12 Dorsey glosses this "grizzly-bear eye-red to-come-for-the-meat pass-ye-on" showing the idiomatic sense of the phrase, referring to the women being summoned to carry home the kill. I think that Rory is exactly right here and the use of =bi conveys that the summons was issued by someone else and is being reported on behalf of the original summoner. I suspect this is at least one variant of the standard message to this effect, delivered on behalf of the hunt leader. > ... In these cases, I don't know whether =bi would be used in the > singular or not. ... As far as I can tell, the =i ~ =bi here is always plural (with the unmarked second person of the imperative form). [I now skip a large section which I hope to ocmeback to, including, in fact, the comments on songs and names. JEK] JEK said: > > Anyway, there's no doubt that both the true Osage > > plural/proximate and the Omaha plural/proximate are > > cognate with the Dakotan plural. They simply have > > different modern patterns of allomorphy, and LaFlesche's > > Osage Dictionary, for unknown reasons, but undoubtedly > > reflecting the Omaha ethnicity of its compiler, has the > > Omaha pattern. This does not seem to reflect anything > > about actual Osage usage at any point. > > The "name defense" and the "song defense" both rested > on the assumption that =i was a recent derivation from > =bi. If these riders go away, then I'm not sure that > that assumption itself is necessary either. Mississippi Valley Siouan *=pi Te OP Os IO Wi =pi =i ~ =bi ~ =b(=az^i) =pi ~ =p(=a) ~ =p(=e) =wi =wi All of these forms condition the a-grade of ablaut. All occur with first, second, and third person as well as imperative plurals. It has been mentioned that =pi can be considerably reduced in Teton fas speech, and in some other Dakotan dialects I believe it is sometimes reduced fairly regularly, though I'm not positive I recall the details correctly. In Dhegiha the alternants also occur with certain third person singulars, as has been seen. The =i alternant is the less marked form in OP. The =bi occurs in the marked context or contexts under discussion. The loss of the final vowel in Dhegiha is essentially due to elision of i before another following vowel. I think all Dhegiha languages lose final i before the negative =(a)z^i, in favor of the a. Osage happens to have male and female declaratives =a and =e that provide quite frequent contexts for loss of i. In fact, I think =p=e is far more common than =pi (because most of the last speakers are female). Why Omaha-Ponca so regularly lost the b instead of the i, and came to retain or restore b in a grammatically conditioned context is not clear to me, but loss of the b (or *p) is not especially exceptional in Siouan developments of =pi. The w in IO and Wi is the regular development of *p in those languages. Ironically, most modern Omaha speakers have lost =i itself in the environment ...a=i##, which is simply ...a##. If there is any change to -a, like lengthening or a if there is a voiceless =i in this context, I missed it. It reappears when various particles (like =ga) follow. I'm have the impression Ponca speakers largely retain it, and Mark Swetland once mentioned an Omaha speaker he encountered in Omaha who apparently usedretained final =i. > John and Regina have both been arguing on the basis > of this assumption, that =i is a reflex of MVS *pi, > and that its existence in that form is a quirk unique > to OP. Regina has suggested that Osage might have > borrowed =i from OP, or that =i might simply be a > speech variation of Osage =pi, to explain the =i forms > that show up in the La Flesche dictionary of Osage. > Against this, John points out the geographical > separation of Osage from OP, and the fact that both > modern Osage and a set of early ritual texts use =pi > for pluralizing; he suspects that La Flesche's Omaha > background may somehow have corrupted the dictionary. I might add that occasional real Osage forms occur in the Dictionary itself, for example in the appended text, or in entries like a-xo-ba-bi 'inviolable'. > In OP, we are fortunate enough to have a very rich > literature recorded from fully fluent speakers in the > late 19th century, which provides a wide variety of > grammatical usages. In that language, =i and =bi > are radically distinct elements which contrast with > each other, while simultaneously signalling several > different semantic implications, not just plurality. > Given how deeply and subtly embedded these particles > are in 19th century OP, can we really be sure that > related languages like Osage did not have a comparable > contrastive pair? I really don't see any evidence to the contrary. Osage reaction to the use of OP =i in the LaFlesche dictionary is pretty decisive. "This is not Osage!" about sums it up. I admit I have this information at second hand from Carolyn Quintero, and may have misunderstood her, and that many other factors, including such simple things as writing ptk as bdg and using anachronistic and rather florid definitions enter in to this, but I think there is no doubt on that score . In addition, though I have not gone into it, my understanding is that Kaw has forms similar to Osage (i.e., mostly =b(=)e, the last speaker being, again, female). Quapaw has =wi or =we, if I recall, but my unpacking hasn't progressed far enough to provide me with something that I can look that up in! > I've looked at the short collection of Osage sayings > at the end of the dictionary, which I understand are > supposed to be basically correct, and not from > La Flesche. There is one case in which =i appears, > in the tta=i tHe form which is common in Omaha, and > which in the context indicates a very certain future. > There are also two or three cases in which =bi is > used for what is singular in the translation. Both > =azhi and =bazhi are used for the negative plural. > If this material is valid, it seems unlikely to me > that Osage =pi was simply a pluralizer at the time > it was collected. It is certainly true, though, that > =bi (=pi) occurs in many places where we would find > =i in 19th century Omaha. The occurrence of =tta=i=the for the 'future of certainty' or future + evidential is interesting, and may point out an environment in which Osage does have an =i, perhaps suggesting the source environment of =i in OP. This environment has another unusual thing about it, whichis that the i- and non-i-variants (in Omaha-Ponca) are =tta=the and tta=i=the, i.e., there is ablaut of =tte before =the. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 06:07:55 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:07:55 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030610233545.02070e68@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mary Marino wrote: > That's what I thought. Michigan State, isn't it? I've been planning to > go. Has there been a change of plans? > At 10:29 PM 6/10/2003 -0600, JEK wrote: > >Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month > >and half? As far as I know, everything is on track, and I, too, am planning to attend. This is just me starting to come out of a fairly lengthy mental hibernation. JEK From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed Jun 11 07:20:17 2003 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:20:17 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's quite alright. I am in much the same situation. I over-react to anything that might signal trouble. Mary At 12:07 AM 6/11/2003 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mary Marino wrote: > > > That's what I thought. Michigan State, isn't it? I've been planning to > > go. Has there been a change of plans? > > > At 10:29 PM 6/10/2003 -0600, JEK wrote: > > >Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month > > >and half? > >As far as I know, everything is on track, and I, too, am planning to >attend. This is just me starting to come out of a fairly lengthy mental >hibernation. > >JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Wed Jun 11 09:38:57 2003 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:38:57 +0100 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan COnference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I also am planning to come and have booked air tickets etc. Is there any plans for accomodation or do we find ourself a friendly Motel. If so , any suggestions? Look forward to seeing you all. Best wishes Bruce > Say, isn't there a Siouan & Caddoan Conference coming up in about a month > and half? > > JEK > > From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Wed Jun 11 14:23:12 2003 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:23:12 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: The Siouan and Caddoan conference IS on. Thanks, John, for reminding us all to start thinking about it. SSILA website says abstracts should be sent to John Boyle by July 3, but not much detail beyond that... was anything ever decided about housing, conference location, exact date (Aug 8-9? 8-10?), etc.? The proposed syntax pre-session, on the other hand, has apparently shrivelled up and vanished -- too little enthusiasm for doing two papers, I guess. I'm not up for writing two papers at this point myself. But I hate to see it completely dropped... Anyone up for a VERY informal syntax roundtable*, say, the afternoon before the meeting? Or even as part of the meeting? I found the Boulder discussions very stimulating, would love to do something like that again, perhaps with even less structure... whoever is interested could just bring problematic data or ideas and let the group have at it, or several of us could agree on a topic to discuss and think about it a little beforehand, but without making formal presentations??? On the other hand, I guess we can also just go down to the local bar and draw tree diagrams on our napkins without having it actually written into the program of the meeting. If there's interest, I'd be willing to coordinate some kind of discussion. Catherine * Interpret with "very informal" modifying "roundtable," of course. I wouldn't want to rule out formal syntax... From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 17:03:06 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:03:06 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: > The Siouan and Caddoan conference IS on. Thanks, John, for reminding us > all to start thinking about it. SSILA website says abstracts should be > sent to John Boyle by July 3, but not much detail beyond that... was > anything ever decided about housing, conference location, exact date (Aug > 8-9? 8-10?), etc.? Ah, I was hoping somebody would remind where to look. SSILA Web site is at http://www.ssila.org and then go to Upcoming Events and then Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference. The actual address of that page appears to be http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/ssila/SACCweb/SACC.htm, though the main site URL is all that shows in the address field of the browser. Mainly we are referred implicitly to the LSA materials, though there's no link. For the LSA Summer Meeting, see http://www.lsadc.org (plain old lsa.org is the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, of course) and the follow links, or go to http://lsa2003.lin.msu.edu/ directly. I'm guessing that housing arrangements for the LSA Summer Institute might apply to us. In particular, the housing page lists some hotels and the travel page looks useful. What's the scale of the conference area? Looks like it's about 3 or 4 miles from the airport. In regard to my guess, I don't see anything about people attending small associated meetings. I'm certain we must not have to register as students or affiliates, but how much of a registration do we have to fill out and what fees, etc., do we have to pay? Will "foreign attendees" have to wear those little cattle ear-tags with their visa number and a DNA code stamped on them? (I'm just kidding - you only have to have it clipped to your lapel. :-{=]) We are listed as an event. > The proposed syntax pre-session, on the other hand, has apparently > shrivelled up and vanished -- too little enthusiasm for doing two papers, I > guess. I'm not up for writing two papers at this point myself. But I > hate to see it completely dropped... Anyone up for a VERY informal syntax > roundtable*, say, the afternoon before the meeting? Or even as part of the > meeting? I found the Boulder discussions very stimulating, would love to > do something like that again, perhaps with even less structure... whoever > is interested could just bring problematic data or ideas and let the group > have at it, or several of us could agree on a topic to discuss and think > about it a little beforehand, but without making formal presentations??? > On the other hand, I guess we can also just go down to the local bar and > draw tree diagrams on our napkins without having it actually written into > the program of the meeting. These all seem like reasonable alternatives to me. I'd be willing to participate in informal discussions. > If there's interest, I'd be willing to coordinate some kind of discussion. > Catherine > > * Interpret with "very informal" modifying "roundtable," of course. I > wouldn't want to rule out formal syntax... From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 11 17:08:14 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:08:14 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > Ah, I was hoping somebody would remind where to look. Not nonstandard gapping, just a typo: "remind *me*." > Mainly we are referred implicitly to the LSA materials, though there's no > link. I take it back - see "related links." Slowly he wakes ... From dvklinguist at hotmail.com Wed Jun 11 18:10:11 2003 From: dvklinguist at hotmail.com (David Kaufman) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:10:11 +0000 Subject: New email address Message-ID: Hi, Please be advised that, for future emails, my new email address is: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com. Thanks. Dave Kaufman _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 11 21:18:27 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: > Anyone up for a VERY informal syntax > roundtable*, say, the afternoon before the meeting? I would be. Tentatively count me in. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 11 22:56:59 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:56:59 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > About a month and a half ago, just before my life became an apparently > unending sequence of Income Tax forms, miscellaneous and alarmingly > past-due deadlines, and, more recently and pleasantly, cheering at > junior girls' softball games, Rory Larson had posted a a very long > (about 17K) and thoughtful discussion of Dhegiha proximates and plurals. Uhh... Sorry about that. Guess I got carried away... > As I am way behind on acknowledging Rory's postings, I thought I could > do far worse than to return from the (apparently) dead to tackle some > aspects of it. Welcome back! (I was getting a little worried!) >On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Rory wrote: >> I'd like to revise my position slightly from what I was >> arguing when first grappling with this. First, the dichotomy >> between =i and =bi is quite regular in the Dorsey texts. If the >> verb is followed by =i, the speaker is asserting it on his own >> account as the straight goods. If the verb is followed by =bi, >> it means that the speaker is absolving himself of responsibility >> for the implication of what he has just said. Thus, =bi is >> regularly used in reporting hearsay, or in describing a former >> hypothesis. In the latter role, it may cover supposition or >> expectation ("supposed to"). > I think I've stated before that I am more and more convinced that this > does explain the opposition of =i and =bi in Omaha-Ponca texts and, on > presume, in conversation, though there are some additional special > cases like names and songs where =bi appears. As Rory points out > subsequently - I may not make it that far this evening - it might be > possible to regard these as special cases of quotative usage, > stipulating that this term is not perhaps used ideally in Siouan > grammatical terminology. Was it reportative that was considered > the better term? I know I didn't like "quotative". "Reportative" is better, but might be better yet reserved for the /ama'/ in /biama'/ and elsewhere. In OP, my sense is that =i implies that you are talking about the real world, while =bi means you are talking about the concept, or a hypothesis about the real world. I can't think of a really good word for this in Latin. >> In third person declarative statements, neither =i nor =bi >> normally has anything to do with plurality. They do indicate >> that the concept is complete rather than progressive, > > That is, progressives are formed by adding one of the positional > forms that serve also as definite articles, and this positional > follows a verb that ends in the stem final vowel, without any > sign of =i ~ =bi. Yes. >> and that it is independent of outside influence. > > Does this refer to sporadic comments in Dorsey's footnotes, > especially in Dorsey 1891 that certain forms without =i would > be this because the action must have been performed at someone > else's behest? 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 or permission of another. ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHa'i ha the horse eats or ate the corn (which he should not have eaten); but ShoN'ge tHoN waha'ba kHe dhatHe'e ha the horse eats or ate the corn (given to him for that purpose). ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha The (motionless) horse is eating the corn (which he should not eat). [...] Well, actually, this seems to make the issue one of akHa' vs. tHoN, rather than =i vs. no =i. And then there's that intriguing =e in the tHoN case, which doesn't cause a-grade ablaut. 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. >> In commands, and in statements and exhortations that use >> the potential particle /tte/, =i at least signals plurality. > > Typically, of course, =tte is followed by a positional, but > it does occur without it in a sort of precative or exortative > sense that Dorsey tends to gloss 'you will please' as in > > i'=dhadhe=tte > you will please send it hither > D90:689.10 > > udha'gdha?a?a=tta=i ha > you will (please) give the scalp yell > D90:15.12 Yes. I've been teaching the class to use this form as a substitute for "please". >> There are a few very rare, but illuminating cases, however, >> in which =i is replaced by =bi in these contexts. > > Referring now to imperatives in =ga (IMPm), rather than precatives. Yes. >> Usually, you command a group of people in the form: V=i ga! >> But if you are conveying someone else's command, you can cast >> it in the form: N V=bi ga!, where N is the name of the party >> whose command you are conveying! > > I think the only examples are instances of > > maNc^hu is^ta'z^ide uihe thi=dha=bi=ga hau > Red-eyed Grizzly Bear to join pass along DECLm > Go to REGB to fetch the meat! > D90:43.12 > > Dorsey glosses this "grizzly-bear eye-red to-come-for-the-meat > pass-ye-on" showing the idiomatic sense of the phrase, > referring to the women being summoned to carry home the kill. > > I think that Rory is exactly right here and the use of =bi > conveys that the summons was issued by someone else and is > being reported on behalf of the original summoner. I suspect > this is at least one variant of the standard message to this > effect, delivered on behalf of the hunt leader. I'm glad you agree. This is the only example I ever found. >> ... In these cases, I don't know whether =bi would be used >> in the singular or not. ... > > As far as I can tell, the =i ~ =bi here is always plural > (with the unmarked second person of the imperative form). This case, and the cases of tta=i (will do X) vs. tta=bi (were supposed to do X), all happen to be plural in reference. A singular situation should be equally possible, but I've never run into one. Rory From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jun 11 23:56:15 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:56:15 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Thu Jun 12 01:26:09 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:26:09 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: JEK said: >> > Anyway, there's no doubt that both the true Osage >> > plural/proximate and the Omaha plural/proximate are >> > cognate with the Dakotan plural. They simply have >> > different modern patterns of allomorphy, and LaFlesche's >> > Osage Dictionary, for unknown reasons, but undoubtedly >> > reflecting the Omaha ethnicity of its compiler, has the >> > Omaha pattern. This does not seem to reflect anything >> > about actual Osage usage at any point. >> >> The "name defense" and the "song defense" both rested >> on the assumption that =i was a recent derivation from >> =bi. If these riders go away, then I'm not sure that >> that assumption itself is necessary either. > Mississippi Valley Siouan *=pi > > Te OP Os IO Wi > > =pi =i ~ =bi ~ =b(=az^i) =pi ~ =p(=a) ~ =p(=e) =wi =wi > > All of these forms condition the a-grade of ablaut. > All occur with first, second, and third person as well > as imperative plurals. It has been mentioned that =pi > can be considerably reduced in Teton fas speech, and in > some other Dakotan dialects I believe it is sometimes > reduced fairly regularly, though I'm not positive I > recall the details correctly. In Dhegiha the alternants > also occur with certain third person singulars, as has > been seen. The =i alternant is the less marked form in > OP. The =bi occurs in the marked context or contexts > under discussion. The loss of the final vowel in > Dhegiha is essentially due to elision of i before > another following vowel. I think all Dhegiha languages > lose final i before the negative =(a)z^i, in favor of > the a. Osage happens to have male and female > declaratives =a and =e that provide quite frequent > contexts for loss of i. In fact, I think =p=e is far > more common than =pi (because most of the last speakers > are female). > Why Omaha-Ponca so regularly lost the b instead of the i, > and came to retain or restore b in a grammatically > conditioned context is not clear to me, but loss of the b > (or *p) is not especially exceptional in Siouan > developments of =pi. The w in IO and Wi is the regular > development of *p in those languages. > Ironically, most modern Omaha speakers have lost =i itself > in the environment ...a=i##, which is simply ...a##. > If there is any change to -a, like lengthening or a if > there is a voiceless =i in this context, I missed it. This is what we're finding with our speakers too. They don't have much patience with me trying to stick an =i in after the final vowel. Needless to say, I've been very frustrated in my attempts to get them to illuminate the finer grammatical points of =i and =bi! > I might add that occasional real Osage forms occur > in the Dictionary itself, for example in the appended > text, or in entries like a-xo-ba-bi 'inviolable'. >> In OP, we are fortunate enough to have a very rich >> literature recorded from fully fluent speakers in the >> late 19th century, which provides a wide variety of >> grammatical usages. In that language, =i and =bi >> are radically distinct elements which contrast with >> each other, while simultaneously signalling several >> different semantic implications, not just plurality. >> Given how deeply and subtly embedded these particles >> are in 19th century OP, can we really be sure that >> related languages like Osage did not have a comparable >> contrastive pair? > I really don't see any evidence to the contrary. > Osage reaction to the use of OP =i in the LaFlesche > dictionary is pretty decisive. "This is not Osage!" > about sums it up. I admit I have this information > at second hand from Carolyn Quintero, and may have > misunderstood her, and that many other factors, > including such simple things as writing ptk as bdg > and using anachronistic and rather florid definitions > enter in to this, but I think there is no doubt on > that score . In addition, though I have not gone into > it, my understanding is that Kaw has forms similar > to Osage (i.e., mostly =b(=)e, the last speaker being, > again, female). Quapaw has =wi or =we, if I recall, > but my unpacking hasn't progressed far enough to > provide me with something that I can look that up in! I certainly wasn't calling Carolyn's or your understanding of modern Osage into question. My suggestion was that the language may have changed in the past century between LaFlesche's time and our own, with some of the less common and more subtle grammatical usages simply falling out. Given that independent =i has pretty well disappeared from modern Omaha, I can get a reaction almost as decisively against its being Omaha from our speakers, but we know it not only existed, but was rather ubiquitous, in the 19th century. Also, I don't doubt that *pi forms have shifted to phonological [i] in some contexts in various MVS languages. I'm just not convinced that that is necessarily the way that OP =i originated. [i] is about as short and undistinctive as a word can be, and any number of words could easily reduce to it, including some modal particle other than *pi. What I'm suggesting is that the =i and =bi particles go back separately at least to proto-Dhegiha, if not to MVS. Their exact usage and meaning would be somewhat different from what we know today, and would have evolved in parallel or in contrast in the various daughter languages. MVS: *=pi *=i## (?) Dhegiha: *=pi *=i In most languages, the *=pi form came to signal plurality as its most important function, and spread to the exclusion or near-exclusion of *=i. In OP, however, =i was retained as a reality signaller, in contrast to =bi, which signalled allegedness. In Osage and other Dhegiha languages, =i was retained, but the circumstances for its usage was very rare. 19th century: OP: =i and =bi Osage: mostly =pi, rare =i 20th century: Omaha: loose =i and =bi dropped Osage: =i dropped, =pi retained for plural So Francis LaFlesche, an Omaha, visits the Osage in the early 20th century. As a native speaker of a closely cognate tongue, he approaches Osage through that language. He is aware that there are phonological and semantic differences between the two languages, and he is careful to record Osage correctly. In collecting his verb paradigms, however, he innocently misrepresents the standard we-forms. In Omaha, the pluralization of these is done in =i, and this is the way he proposes his verbs to the elderly Osage speakers. "Can you say oN[verb]-i?" he inquires in Dhegiha. In Osage, the =i form is specialized, rare and archaic, but the elderly speakers recall their elders using it in their youth. To them, it is technically grammatical, so they accept it, and it goes in the dictionary. LaFlesche and his informants get habituated to this routine, and the =i forms pile up with little criticism. In the late 20th century, however, when modern linguists such as Carolyn Quintero go to work with the Osage, the current generation of elders has grown up in the 20th century and has never heard the old =i form used. They flatly reject this form as not being Osage. I think the above hypothesis would exonerate LaFlesche, explain the =i forms in his dictionary, reassure us of the basic value of that dictionary, and explain some possible fossilized =i forms in Osage, without contradicting the findings of our modern lingists. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Thu Jun 12 02:20:49 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:20:49 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: >> I've looked at the short collection of Osage sayings >> at the end of the dictionary, which I understand are >> supposed to be basically correct, and not from >> La Flesche. There is one case in which =i appears, >> in the tta=i tHe form which is common in Omaha, and >> which in the context indicates a very certain future. >> There are also two or three cases in which =bi is >> used for what is singular in the translation. Both >> =azhi and =bazhi are used for the negative plural. >> If this material is valid, it seems unlikely to me >> that Osage =pi was simply a pluralizer at the time >> it was collected. It is certainly true, though, that >> =bi (=pi) occurs in many places where we would find >> =i in 19th century Omaha. > The occurrence of =tta=i=the for the 'future of > certainty' or future + evidential is interesting, > and may point out an environment in which Osage > does have an =i, perhaps suggesting the source > environment of =i in OP. This environment has > another unusual thing about it, which is that the > i- and non-i-variants (in Omaha-Ponca) are =tta=the > and tta=i=the, i.e., there is ablaut of =tte before > =the. 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 niNkHe you-future tta tHe constrained future tta akHa s/he-future-of-their-own-free-will tta ama they-future-of-their-own-free-will ttoNgatHoN we-future ( < tta oNgatHoN (?) ) 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? Rory From lcumberl at indiana.edu Thu Jun 12 05:44:19 2003 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:44:19 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss the conference this year - a big disappointment because I really need to talk to you all! And I would have loved a syntax session. But my daughter is getting married in Seattle and I have to be out there to do the mother-of-the-bride thing, my one and only chance! Oh, but of all years to have to miss! If the conference had been even a week earlier I could have made it, but that's life. I hope one of you will give me a run-down, and maybe send me a set of the handouts. Linda ------------------- From mary.marino at usask.ca Thu Jun 12 06:15:14 2003 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:15:14 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: <200306120544.AAA13227@iupui.edu> Message-ID: Linda - At least one of us will; I' ll collect extras of everything and keep you in mind. Congratulations to your daughter, and best of luck all around. Mary Marino,L&L At 12:44 AM 6/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss the conference this year - a >big disappointment because I really need to talk to you all! And I >would have loved a syntax session. But my daughter is getting married >in Seattle and I have to be out there to do the mother-of-the-bride >thing, my one and only chance! Oh, but of all years to have to miss! >If the conference had been even a week earlier I could have made it, >but that's life. I hope one of you will give me a run-down, and maybe >send me a set of the handouts. > >Linda >------------------- From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jun 12 14:25:50 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:25:50 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > In OP, my sense is that =i implies that you are talking about the > real world, while =bi means you are talking about the concept, or > a hypothesis about the real world. I can't think of a really > good word for this in Latin. In Osage lots of posttonic voiceless stops and affricates simply vanish intervocalically in more rapid speech. Carolyn would have to be the one to say whether it ever happens with -api/-ape or not, but it certainly happens word-internally. In Kaw I never had a single case of -i (i.e., loss of the /b/) anywhere in my data and there is no trace of it in Dorsey's Kaw data either. Same for Dorsey's Quapaw where the particle is -awi/-awe regularly. Even the phonologically "weaker" /w/ stays. So I wonder if we simply have a more rapid delivery when we "know what we're talking about", but when we voice hypotheses and the like, we simply slow down and the phonology doesn't routinely suffer so much fast-speech reduction? As for the initial /a/ of -api, -azhi, etc., of course it could historically be a separate morpheme. Actually I think John has had a theory that this was so since the mid '80's that he can elaborate on. But there is, of course, always a temptation to keep reducing things until, basically, every phoneme is a morpheme. It's a question of evidence. It is the case throughout Dhegiha that the positionals take the "a" form of -tte/-tta, but whether the explanation is analogical or morphological remains unclear, at least to me. Until I find more contexts that would help put a label on it, I personally take the explanation to be analogical. Bob From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Thu Jun 12 16:32:44 2003 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:32:44 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference Message-ID: >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. Oh, good!!! Looks like at least a few people are interested. I suppose "junction/juncture" covers issues like subordination/coordination of clauses & phrases/"flat" vs. more hierarchical structures/generally how various syntactic units are connected to each other????? Is that more or less the idea? Thanks for the update, especially on the housing. Looking forward to it ... Catherine From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 12 17:12:40 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:12:40 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > This is what we're finding with our speakers too. They > don't have much patience with me trying to stick an =i > in after the final vowel. Needless to say, I've been > very frustrated in my attempts to get them to illuminate > the finer grammatical points of =i and =bi! I think, however, that, knowing that final -a in an ablauting verb represents original -a=i, you can just convert your enterprise to investigating zero vs. =bi. The functionality is the same. I'm not sure I see =bi per se as marking anything. It is just the variant of =i (and now =0) that occurs in "quoting contexts" when =i would otherwise be required. In fact, since =i still occurs before certain following morphemes, what's happened is that =i ~ =bi is now =0 ~ =i ~ =bi. > I certainly wasn't calling Carolyn's or your understanding > of modern Osage into question. My suggestion was that the > language may have changed in the past century between > LaFlesche's time and our own, with some of the less common > and more subtle grammatical usages simply falling out. What I'm saying, however, is that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that Osage has ever had the =i alternative, except maybe in that =tta=i=the context you pointed out (in Osage that should be =tta=i=che, I'd think, with che representing aspirated c, i.e, ts). On that I'd have to check to be certain that the example in question was an unmodified extract of the Osage document I saw once in Carolyn's collection. It was some kind of a missionary publication, I think, that she'd gotten a copy of from a local museum, and was plainly the source of most of the sentences included at the end of the LaFlesche Osage dictionary. Anyway, apart from that both old and modern examples of Osage simply have =pi where OP has =i ~ =bi. This =pi does lose the final i when a declarative or negative follows, yielding =p=e, =p=a, and =p=az^i, as I recall it. In Caroline's materials the =p=e variant is much the most common, and most of the speakers she worked with were women. I'm not sure we ever positively determined that =e was the feminine declarative and =a the masculine, though that seems reasonable, as the comparable OP forms were (in the 1880s) he and ha. (That, too, has changed in modern OP.) A factor that complicates the picture in Osage is that the Osage version of OP ama - the motion/plural progressive auxiliary/article - is apa, all *W becoming p in Osage instead of m as in OP. So, of coruse, female speakers have apa in progressives and =p[=]e in non-progressives, and male speakers have apa vs. =p[=]a. Of course, as Bob has pointed out, =p=e and =p[=]a follow a in ablauting verbs. OP ama vs. ...a=(b)i is a bit of a blessing. In any event, though pe and pa occur plentifully, =i does not. > What I'm suggesting is that the =i and =bi particles > go back separately at least to proto-Dhegiha, if not > to MVS. But there's really no evidence for =i outside of OP, except for that =tta=i=the, and, more importantly, Osage has pi/pe/pa where OP has i, not just where it has bi. I think there actually are some Osage texts from the 1880s, just not many, and unpublished. They might be included in the Swetland microfilm copies of the Dorsey files. There are also Dorsey's lexical slips. From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Thu Jun 12 19:42:51 2003 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:51 -0500 Subject: 23rd Annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >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. > >Oh, good!!! Looks like at least a few people are interested. I suppose >"junction/juncture" covers issues like subordination/coordination of >clauses & phrases/"flat" vs. more hierarchical structures/generally how >various syntactic units are connected to each other????? Is that more or >less the idea? > >Thanks for the update, especially on the housing. Looking forward to it >... > >Catherine Hi Everyone, Regarding the parasession, Catherine has the right idea. Or if we all just remember school house rock: "Conjunction, conjunction what's your function? hookin' up words, phrases, and clauses" - How do the Siouan languages do this and what is the structure? Best wishes, John From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Fri Jun 13 00:48:54 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:48:54 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > So I wonder if we simply have a more rapid delivery > when we "know what we're talking about", but when we > voice hypotheses and the like, we simply slow down and > the phonology doesn't routinely suffer so much > fast-speech reduction? That's an interesting idea for the origin of the =i vs. =bi distinction. I don't think it works as such to explain the actual situation in 19th century OP. The distinction there is bound up with a difference in grammatical context as well as semantics. The four common ways of forming a statement seem to be: {Concept} i [ha|he]. {Concept} is an ongoing fact. {Concept} i tHe. {Concept} is what happened. {Concept} bi ama'. {Concept} occurred according to the story. {Concept} bi tHe ama. {Concept} had already occurred at this point in the story. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a sentence ending in "bi ha", "bi tHe", "i ama'" or "i tHe ama'", though it should be quite possible for a person to have to pause to think about a fact they are reporting, or to know a story well enough that they shouldn't have to pause to think in recounting it. A problem with this idea is that the =i or =bi comes after the concept it is modifying. Whether you're having trouble putting your concept into words or not, you've already done the job by the time =i or =bi becomes an issue. One could argue though that at some earlier point in OP development *=bi was retained in this form in thoughtful or formal speech involving multiple clauses or sentences, while being elided to =i in rapid or colloquial speech. The difference might then have been grammaticalized into the form we find in 19th century OP. Since =i and =bi work the same way in both Omaha and Ponka, this grammaticalization event would have to have occurred at a much earlier time, in the early 18th century or before. I'd consider this to be a viable hypothesis for the origin of =i vs. =bi, in OP or Dhegiha. It would have the advantage of immediately explaining why =i in OP behaves so much like *=pi in other MVS languages. However, the possibility that =i derives from a completely different element than *=pi seems equally viable. I think this is an open question. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jun 13 14:05:36 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:05:36 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > I'm pretty sure I've never seen a sentence ending in > "bi ha", "bi tHe", "i ama'" or "i tHe ama'", Lots of {-abe che} sequences in Kansa though. I leave it to the Omaha specialists to figure out if there is a difference between OM/PN -ai and -abi, but there isn't any discernable one so far in QU, OS or KS, and, in fact, the *-ai version just doesn't occur as far as I can tell. It's pretty clear that Quapaw split off first, and it also lacks any such distinction. There is a strong tendency for people to try very hard to assign different meanings to allomorphs when questioned explicitly about them. If you "say 'em different" they should mean something different. And, often enough, such allomorphs really develop a semantic distinction. I suspect that if there is a distinction in OM, that's how it happened. English 'brothers' and 'bretheren' were once just variants, but they now have different meanings, even though their singulars are the same. Bob From lcumberl at indiana.edu Fri Jun 13 23:04:13 2003 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:04:13 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Caddoan Conference In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030612001316.00b52cd8@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Hi Mary, Thanks so much! Here's my address: 417 N. Indiana Ave. Bloomington, IN 47408 The saving grace of all of this is that my daughter is so happy - and I really like the young man. It should be fun, but I will really miss being with all of you. Best, Linda ------------------- > Linda - At least one of us will; I' ll collect extras of everything and > keep you in mind. > Congratulations to your daughter, and best of luck all around. > > Mary Marino,L&L > > > > > At 12:44 AM 6/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss the conference this year - a > >big disappointment because I really need to talk to you all! And I > >would have loved a syntax session. But my daughter is getting married > >in Seattle and I have to be out there to do the mother-of-the-bride > >thing, my one and only chance! Oh, but of all years to have to miss! > >If the conference had been even a week earlier I could have made it, > >but that's life. I hope one of you will give me a run-down, and maybe > >send me a set of the handouts. > > > >Linda > >------------------- > > > > From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Sat Jun 14 00:12:04 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:12:04 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates Message-ID: > But there's really no evidence for =i outside of OP, except for that > =tta=i=the, and, more importantly, Osage has pi/pe/pa where OP has i, not > just where it has bi. I've been looking over Carolyn Quintero's "First Course in Osage" book in Mark's office. It looks like there are number of cases where we get some sort of Cai sequence, including the end sequence of the we-plural form. I think she mentions these somewhere as diphthongs. This may be a phonological quirk of Osage, and if so, that =tta=i=the would be explained away. Are you familiar with these? As far as I can tell, pi generally functions as a pluralizer, except in third-person declarative forms (pe/pa), where it is used for either singular or plural. Is this understanding correct? There also seems to be a post-verbal particle =dhe ~ =e which is supposed to function as a sort of emphatic. Does this equate to anything in any language outside of Osage? Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from the comparativists (John? Bob?) on the alternate Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer =ire. Is it known to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? > I think there actually are some Osage texts from the 1880s, just not many, > and unpublished. They might be included in the Swetland microfilm copies > of the Dorsey files. There are also Dorsey's lexical slips. Thanks for the tip! I hope I run into them soon! Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jun 14 14:26:33 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:26:33 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: > I've been looking over Carolyn Quintero's "First Course in Osage" > book in Mark's office. It looks like there are number of cases > where we get some sort of Cai sequence, including the end sequence > of the we-plural form. I think she mentions these somewhere as > diphthongs. This may be a phonological quirk of Osage, and if so, > that =tta=i=the would be explained away. Are you familiar with > these? I don't have the instructional materials, but I leave it to Carolyn to comment on the Osage. I did recordings with 3 fluent OS speakers back about 1980 but never heard the -p- elided or missing. But, as I said, loss of post-accentual stops is not uncommon within roots and stems. Compare Omaha sne:de and Osage ste: 'long, tall'. There are many other such. > As far as I can tell, pi generally functions as a pluralizer, > except in third-person declarative forms (pe/pa), where it is > used for either singular or plural. Is this understanding > correct? Again, I won't try to speak for Osage, but the endings -api/-ape are the unmarked/female plural and 3sg markers (3rd sg. for some grammatical category having to do with obviation, as discussed often on the list). These suffixes are bimorphemic (at east). -Ape incorporates the feminine declarative marker -(dh)e. If you also have a male declarative, -ha, then -apa might occur too, I suppose, but since the speakers I've worked with have been predominently female, I cannot say for sure. > There also seems to be a post-verbal particle =dhe ~ =e which is > supposed to function as a sort of emphatic. Does this equate to > anything in any language outside of Osage? Yes, that's the female declarative (above). It is found all over Mississippi Valley Siouan. You have it (or used to have it) in Omaha and Ponca, all other Dhegiha dialects, Dakotan and probably Chiwere in one form or another. Sara Trechter has a short comparative study of the gender-sensitive modals, and I think she found it everywhere in MVS except Winnebago. In WI it may have a few reflexes in songs, but I think that's basically an open question. She could tell you much more. > Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from the comparativists > (John? Bob?) on the alternate Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer > =ire. Is it known to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? Unless John has something on this I don't think it's ever been tackled seriously by Siouanists. I seem to recall a Mandan 3rd person pluralizer that had a similar sequence of -VrV, but I'm just saying this from (an ever less reliable) memory. I also have a vague recollection of maybe an analogous Tutelo form. (I'm at home and can't look these things up at the moment.) > > I think there actually are some Osage texts from the 1880s, just not > many, and unpublished. They might be included in the Swetland microfilm copies > > of the Dorsey files. There are also Dorsey's lexical slips. I just looked at Mark's microfilms last week. The Kaw Nation has copies. Look on reel 7. Reel 6 contains some (not nearly all) JOD's Kaw material. Reel 7 is Osage and Reel 8 is Quapaw. All are selective and not complete versions of the Dorsey files, but we owe Mark a debt of gratitude for including the (quite respectable) amounts of those languages that he was able to with his space/time constraints. I assume all of the first 5 reels are Omaha and Ponca. There's still lots more to understand. . . . Bob From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Sun Jun 15 19:58:24 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:58:24 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: > I just looked at Mark's microfilms last week. The Kaw > Nation has copies. Look on reel 7. Reel 6 contains > some (not nearly all) JOD's Kaw material. Reel 7 is > Osage and Reel 8 is Quapaw. All are selective and not > complete versions of the Dorsey files, but we owe Mark > a debt of gratitude for including the (quite > respectable) amounts of those languages that he was > able to with his space/time constraints. I assume all > of the first 5 reels are Omaha and Ponca. Reels 1-3 are the Omaha/Ponca dictionary slips. Reel 4 has miscellaneous material, including about 450 Osage vocabulary slips collected from other investigators. A lot of them seem to be from a Dr. Murray, who represents [i] with 'e' and [a] with 'augh'. Thanks for the advice. I think I'll skip ahead! Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Sun Jun 15 21:18:50 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:18:50 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: >> Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from >> the comparativists (John? Bob?) on the alternate >> Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer =ire. Is it known >> to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? > > Unless John has something on this I don't think it's > ever been tackled seriously by Siouanists. I seem to > recall a Mandan 3rd person pluralizer that had a > similar sequence of -VrV, but I'm just saying this from > (an ever less reliable) memory. I also have a vague > recollection of maybe an analogous Tutelo form. (I'm > at home and can't look these things up at the moment.) Alright, then how would this work as a phonological sequence for =ire, supposing it were present in MVS, and supposing it were to make it down intact into the Dhegihan languages? MVS: =ire | ------------------------------------ | | HC: =ire Dh: =ire | | | ------------------------- | | | | | OP: =iye | | | | | | | | | | HC: =ire OP: =idhe Os. =idhe Ks. =iye I'm assuming that OP at least went through an intermediate stage of [y] between [r] and [dh]. I'm basing that assumption on the fact that i- verbs take an epenthetic [dh] between the i- and a- morphemes in the I-form: 3rd: i-{verb} ==> i{verb} you: i-dha-{verb} ==> idha{verb} I: i-a-{verb} ==> idha{verb} Since the shift from [i] to any other vowel can optionally be interpreted as [y], i-ya and i-a sound the same, and both can be understood as i-ya. Then if [y]=>[dh], both come out as idha. Therefore, to make the above paradigm come out the way it does, there had to be a time in OP history when the [r]=>[dh] phoneme was pronounced essentially [y]. Is this generally accepted? Rory From Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com Sun Jun 15 21:28:25 2003 From: Anthony.Grant3 at btinternet.com (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:28:25 +0100 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: Rory et al: The 'Dr Murray' is the author of one of the earliest Osage vocabularies. It's not William Vans Murray, who got a vocab of Choptank Algonquian which has often been taken as Nanticoke. I'm not sure if it's the Osage vocabulary which occupies a single page in Schoolcraft's thuge book. The earliest Osage vocabulary I know of is by John Bradbury, a naturalist from Stalybridge in Cheshire, England, who collected it c. 1800, at a time whe hewas staying with the Spanish furtrader Manuel Lisa . It's found in Bradbury's book 'Travels in the Interior of America', which was repirnted in the 1960s. Bradbury was no James Owen Dorsey in terms of linguistic skill, but he was a better phonetician than Dr Murray. Anthony Grant ----- Original Message ----- From: Rory M Larson To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. > > > I just looked at Mark's microfilms last week. The Kaw > > Nation has copies. Look on reel 7. Reel 6 contains > > some (not nearly all) JOD's Kaw material. Reel 7 is > > Osage and Reel 8 is Quapaw. All are selective and not > > complete versions of the Dorsey files, but we owe Mark > > a debt of gratitude for including the (quite > > respectable) amounts of those languages that he was > > able to with his space/time constraints. I assume all > > of the first 5 reels are Omaha and Ponca. > > Reels 1-3 are the Omaha/Ponca dictionary slips. Reel 4 > has miscellaneous material, including about 450 Osage > vocabulary slips collected from other investigators. > A lot of them seem to be from a Dr. Murray, who > represents [i] with 'e' and [a] with 'augh'. > > Thanks for the advice. I think I'll skip ahead! > > Rory > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 16 07:34:46 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:34:46 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > I've been looking over Carolyn Quintero's "First Course in Osage" book > in Mark's office. It looks like there are number of cases where we > get some sort of Cai sequence, including the end sequence of the > we-plural form. I don't have this material, but I suspect that the ai in this case is a reduced a(dh)e, presumably the declarative on a dual. > As far as I can tell, pi generally functions as a pluralizer, > except in third-person declarative forms (pe/pa), where it is > used for either singular or plural. Is this understanding > correct? I believe so. Allowing for -pi ~ -pe ~ -pa as allomorphs instead of OP -i ~ -bi ~ -b- it's essentially the same situation as OP. > There also seems to be a post-verbal particle =dhe ~ =e which is > supposed to function as a sort of emphatic. Does this equate to > anything in any language outside of Osage? It's the feminine declarative, comparable to OP -he (vs. masculine -ha(u)) in the Dorsey texts. I'm not sure if it's necessarily cognate. It seems to be a better match for OP -dhe (vs. -dha(u)), which is more emphatic than the declarative, and also occurs in reporting or announcing the words of others (-edhe,- adha). I recall that Clifford Wolfe used to use -ano (-adhau) in his PowWow announcing. > Finally, I'm going to ask again for comment from the comparativists > (John? Bob?) on the alternate Winnebago 3rd-person pluralizer > =ire. Is it known to be cognate to anything outside of Winnebago? Frommemory: Winnebago -irE ~ -wi IO -hnE ~ -wi Mandan -kErE (< -krE) Tutelo -hlE It has always looked to me like the PS form is something like *=kre. I don't understand Winnebago i. It's a bit like Teton having iNktE in the future (with some support in Winnebago, as I recall), while the others all have *kte (with the e-grade). I think *=kre conditions the a-grade in ablaut, like *=pi, so, as Bob has been pointing out, it's probably best to speak in terms of *akre and *api. In an aside, OP e=iN=the 'perhaps' may have a cognate of the Teton iN of the future, though this iN never occurs with the future =tte. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 16 08:37:03 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:37:03 -0600 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with enye before i). I'm sorry, I think the -hne in my last letter was spurious. It's just -ne. I can't seem to locate Whitman at the moment, but I believe that's correct. Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Alright, then how would this work as a phonological > sequence for =ire, supposing it were present in MVS, > and supposing it were to make it down intact into > the Dhegihan languages? > > MVS: =ire ... > | | | | > HC: =ire OP: =idhe Os. =idhe Ks. =iye Hc (not Ho?) being Hochank, I assume. > I'm assuming that OP at least went through an > intermediate stage of [y] between [r] and [dh]. > I'm basing that assumption on the fact that > i- verbs take an epenthetic [dh] between the > i- and a- morphemes in the I-form: Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic situations. PMV (PS) Te OP Os Ks IO Wi *y c^h z^ z^ z^ r ~ y* r *r y* dh* dh* y* r* r* *Note: Rather complicated mergers of *r with *R in clusters, which sometimes look like allophony in r reflex, cf. Osage orthographic dh but br vs. OP dh and bdh. Whitman (not knowing the historical phonology at all) argues that y in IO is old *z^, if I recall. *ira iya- idha- idha- iya- ira- (h)ira *iro iyo- udhu- odho- oyo- ora- (h)iro- (roo-?) *ra ya- dha- dha- ya- ra- ra- *hirE =yA =dhE =dhE =yE =hi =hi DAT *hire =khiyA =khidhe =ks^idhe =khidhe ? =gigi These are (1) the combination of i and a locatives, (2) the combination of i and o locatives, (3) the regular second person active pronominal, (4) the simple causative, and (5) the dative of the causative. I'm not sure why the pronominal's initial behaves as if it were epenthetic, since it probably isn't. Note that the pronominals precede the Dakotan and Dhegiha causative, but follow the IO and Wi causitive, so the formula was originally something like *=hi=PRO-(r)a. Hidatsa and Biloxi have evidence of the same pattern. The datives involve considerable innovation in morphosyntax and are often not really datives. Wi g < *k-h is regular, but probably the underlying form there is something like *ki-k-hi. Osage ks^ is orthographic practice for /kh/ [kx ~ ks^], with ks^ before i and e and u. There are other contexts for the epenthesis of *r in Dhegiha in particular, e.g., the inflection of regulars with the *i locative, and generally regularly between *i and the first persons and inclusives of the form a and aN (or oN). Also idhadi 'his father' (but not dhiadi 'your father'), to cite OP forms. > Since the shift from [i] to any other vowel can > optionally be interpreted as [y], i-ya and i-a > sound the same, and both can be understood as > i-ya. There are two complicating factors here. One is that the rhoticization of *y looks like it dates to Proto-Siouan and was complete before Dhegiha existed as a separate branch, though, of course, it may have been a dialect cluster in Proto-Mississippi Valley within Proto-Siouan (if we assume no substantial displacements of components of PMV and PS, as displacements (migration) tend to mess up dialect structures - sort of like trying to move your house of cards to another table). The other factor is that once it is established in a language that r (or n) is the appropriate segment to separate some kinds of vowels from other kinds, and especially if those language lack a contrastive y (and maybe tend to give r near i a bit of palatalization), then r (or n) becomes the logical thing to insert between i and other vowels. Quite a few Native American languages use epenthetic r (or n) to separate one vowel from another. I guess a third factor here is that we might want to consider "the epenthetic sonorant" whatever it is (y, r, n, dh, ...) as being effectively a separate segment from whatever it happens to sound like at the moment. For example, I have the distinct impression that speakers of Omaha know which dh's are real and which are epenthetic, at least to the extent of knowing that the latter are far more elidable in fast speech, so that you get variants like Is^tinikhe ~ Is^tidhiNkhe or maNdhiNkka ~ maNiNkka or dhiNkhe ~ iNkhe rather more frequently than similar losses with initial dh of dh-stems, and so on. I realize that this is relatively more - OK, heretically more - morphologized than we ideally like phonology to be and that I may have to do penance for this in the afterworld. Of course, and dh is fair game in fast speech and I spent a good deal of time agonizing over the sentence introducing particle ege before I finally concluded it was just egidhe 'finally, as expected, naturally' said even faster than usual. I think that's ultimately from 'to say' - a sort of more regular version of the dative, vs., well, ege (e=gi-e), though I don't think this latter ege accounts for the former one. I suppose English analogs might be "quotha" or "says'e" or "'n('en) he goes." Just a guess. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jun 16 13:50:23 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:50:23 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: Thanks to Rory for the additional info on the microfilms. I didn't have a chance to look at all of them as it took me the better part of an hour during my visit to figure out how to work the machine. :-) As John points out, lots of western hemisphere languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but what it contrasts with. I'll check Giulia's Tutelo for the -(k)ire suffix. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Mon Jun 16 15:18:33 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:18:33 -0500 Subject: Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms. Message-ID: >> HC: =ire OP: =idhe Os. =idhe Ks. =iye > Hc (not Ho?) being Hochank, I assume. Yes. I thought I had seen it abbreviated that way by one of the Hochank specialists on the list before, and supposed that that was preferred. I see you're using Wi. By the way, John, get some sleep! I hate to think I kept you up till 3:30 in the morning on this! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 16 17:30:18 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:30:18 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: <005f01c3340e$3d8f64e0$d1b5ed81@ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, rankin wrote: > Thanks to Rory for the additional info on the microfilms. Actually, Mark Swetland also made a fairly detailed index to the films, which I have filed but, well, then I moved three or four times. I know I still have it, but where? JEK From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Tue Jun 17 01:00:57 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:00:57 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: John wrote: > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > situations. Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John for his thorough discussion of this fly in my ointment! However, Bob wrote: > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > what it contrasts with. So perhaps I don't really need to worry about the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: MVS: =i(*r)e | --------------------- | | | Dh: =i(*r)e | | | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) | | Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we have: MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire OP: xe xa=bi xa=i I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade ablaut in this case. John wrote: > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > enye before i). Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in the declarative form, if the other ones are all like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be correct? Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also used for the 3rd person singular declarative. There is presumably some subtle difference in meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. The process is similar to English "should have" first being slurred to "should've" and then reconstructed as "should of". Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving behind a few traces of its original presence in fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. If the semantic distinction is strengthened, however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e element bursts its cage and becomes a completely parallel, but separate, form that needs to be rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. This is what will have happened in OP. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Tue Jun 17 01:41:38 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:41:38 -0500 Subject: Winnebago =ire Message-ID: I have a couple of questions about the Winnebago pluralizing particle =ire. I was wondering if any of the Hochank specialists in particular would be willing to respond? 1. How would you describe the relationship between =ire and =wi? I understand that =wi is a general pluralizer that can be employed anywhere, while =ire is restricted to the 3rd person plural. Is there any semantic distinction between them? For 3rd plural, when would you use =ire, and when would you prefer =wi? 2. In Lipkind, I found that =ire can be used for both active and stative verbs. The example given for an active verb was /xe/, "bury" (or was it "dig"?). xe xa=wi xa=ire The example given for a stative verb was /sh?ak'/, meaning "old". I recall the "they are old" form as being sh?agire (Now I'm forgetting if that glottal was there or not. Correct me if I'm wrong!) I assume that /sh?ak'/ is related to OP /iNsh?age/, meaning "old man". I assume its original form would be something like /*sh?ake/. Would it be correct to say that the =ire ending conditions a-grade ablaut in active verbs, but not in stative ones? Thanks for any advice you can offer! Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jun 17 03:13:44 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:13:44 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: I went and checked the Tutelo form. There is a 3rd plural suffix /-hele/ that has numerous allomorphs including -hele, -hle, -hela, -hne and others. And re the Hochunk forms, don't forget that *-a > -e after velars in final position, e.g., Proto-Siouan *ru:tka 'dove, pigeon', WI ruucge' and other similar forms. Bob From johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Tue Jun 17 09:09:27 2003 From: johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:27 +0200 Subject: Winnebago =ire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Rory, let me briefly respond to your query on Hocank (Winnebago). -ire ist indeed a 3pl suffix that neutralizes the active / inactive distinction in intransitive verbs. In transitive verbs it is the 3pl actor exponent. 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. -wi is not specific with regard to the semantic role in intransitive verbs. It is not specific with regard to the semantic role in transitive verbs either. If there are two core participants of the first and second person represented by the respective prefixes, -wi can pluralize either one or the other or both. I'll illustrate this with an example: hiNnax?wi 'you (sg) bury us (excl)' /hiN-ra-x?e-wi/ 'you (pl) bury us (excl)' 'you (pl) bury me' Since -wi is used to pluralize SAP(s) only it cannot be used as an indefinite pronominal affix. Reference is alsways definite. On the other hand, -ire can be used as an indefinite pronoun pretty much like the English they. Both suffixes -wi and -ire trigger e->a ablaut, and -ire also undergoes this rule, but I am not aware that this is determined by the class of the verb (active/ inactive). I hope this answers the questions. Best Johannes Helmbrecht Rory M Larson schrieb: >I have a couple of questions about the Winnebago >pluralizing particle =ire. I was wondering if >any of the Hochank specialists in particular >would be willing to respond? > >1. How would you describe the relationship > between =ire and =wi? I understand that > =wi is a general pluralizer that can be > employed anywhere, while =ire is restricted > to the 3rd person plural. Is there any > semantic distinction between them? For > 3rd plural, when would you use =ire, and > when would you prefer =wi? > >2. In Lipkind, I found that =ire can be used > for both active and stative verbs. The > example given for an active verb was /xe/, > "bury" (or was it "dig"?). > > xe xa=wi xa=ire > > The example given for a stative verb was > /sh?ak'/, meaning "old". I recall the > "they are old" form as being > > sh?agire > > (Now I'm forgetting if that glottal was > there or not. Correct me if I'm wrong!) > > I assume that /sh?ak'/ is related to OP > /iNsh?age/, meaning "old man". I assume > its original form would be something like > /*sh?ake/. > > Would it be correct to say that the =ire > ending conditions a-grade ablaut in active > verbs, but not in stative ones? > >Thanks for any advice you can offer! > >Rory > > > > > From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Tue Jun 17 22:35:27 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:35:27 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: Bob wrote: > I went and checked the Tutelo form. There is a 3rd > plural suffix /-hele/ that has numerous allomorphs > including -hele, -hle, -hela, -hne and others. Is it in the complementary distribution with an *=(a)pi suffix that Dr. Helmbrecht describes for Winnebago? > And re the Hochunk forms, don't forget that *-a > -e > after velars in final position, e.g., Proto-Siouan > *ru:tka 'dove, pigeon', WI ruucge' and other similar > forms. So how does that affect the ablaut issue? Thanks, Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 17 23:09:38 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:09:38 -0600 Subject: a > e in Winnebago In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > And re the Hochunk forms, don't forget that *-a > -e > > after velars in final position, e.g., Proto-Siouan > > *ru:tka 'dove, pigeon', WI ruucge' and other similar > > forms. > > So how does that affect the ablaut issue? I'm not aware that it does, though in principle it might suppress ablaut in final *-C[+velar](a) stems. It does result in various *-a## being lost when -e## is lost, and in unexpected e after -k (etc.) as in ruucge. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 17 23:52:23 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:52:23 -0600 Subject: More plural. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob wrote: > > I went and checked the Tutelo form. There is a 3rd > > plural suffix /-hele/ that has numerous allomorphs > > including -hele, -hle, -hela, -hne and others. > > Is it in the complementary distribution with an > *=(a)pi suffix that Dr. Helmbrecht describes for > Winnebago? No, but I think the second person plural enclitic is *=pV, where V might be u (from memory). The plurals outside MV are rather different, though they always seem to condition the a-grade in ablaut, and to involve an enclitic element following the stem. Sometimes there's no enclitic with the inclusive. Mandan and Tutelo have different forms in different persons. Biloxi and Ofo both, if I recall, seem to have *ru or *tu. Things are odder still in Crow and Hidatsa. I don't think there's any trace of the *k of putative *krE in Winnebago, but one might argue that -ire is an irregular outgrowth ire, from -ere from -kErE from -*kre, i.e., with generalized loss of the initial k in some sort of stem-enclitic juncture problem resolution. Or one might look at =ne in IO and conclude that Winnebago =ire was a combination of *=i and *=re. This would leave us with *=i to explain separately, if it wasn't taken to be some sort of reduction of =wi. Both the IO and Tu forms suggest some sort of nasalization apparently missing in the other members of this (possible) set. Tu seems to have l ~ n depending on the nasality of the following vowel. Or in some cases in might be the preceding vowel, since here it doesn't seem to depend on the final vowel! It is, of course, difficult to tell. This might be a good point to note that final -i in certain enclitics seems to vary between being oral and nasal across Dakotan dialects and MV languages, e.g., xti(N), =s^i(N). I notice we don't have a model of how enclitic pluralization (or augmentation: [+someotherguys]) arises in Siouan languages as opposed to proclitic or prefixed pronominals. Is this pattern attested elsewhere? The only likely sort of candidate that comes to mind would be some sort of positional, and, of course, *=kre does look rather like a positional, and positionals sometimes condition ablaut. On the other hand, *=pi and *=tu don't especially look like positionals. And why ablaut? If the a- is thought of as part of the enclitic, why do all plural enclitics have it? Has =*api (or *=atu or *=aX) been reduced to =a in many places (as ..a=i reduces to a in modern OP in many contexts) and then been supplemented by other things in various languages? This would parallel cases of multiple personal prefixes on the same stem, e.g., OP a-t-taNbe or wi-b-dhitta (from daNbe and dhitta). Dhegiha has pluralizing positionals in its progressive (or continuative?) forms en lieu of the plural enclitics, and some positionals (interestingly, I think) start with a-, e.g., ama (and singular akha), which seem potentially to be from simpler *ma and *kha, cf. =ma 'animate obviative collective' and =khe 'inanimate or animate obviative supine'. In addition, the inclusive of positionals like thaN 'animate obviative standing' or dhiN 'animate obviative moving' have a sort of extra or "locative" a, e.g., aNgathaN, showing another trace of an a-prefix on positionals. Whatever this a- is, it might elucidate the a of the plural. If progressives tended to generalize into aspectually unmarked forms, a progressive with a positional *=a=pi or *a=tu or *=a=kre might end up an ablauting plural marker. Of course, I still don't know why or what the -a-. I have at times considered that it might be some sort of nominalizer. Progressives might reasonably derive from noun forms, essentially 'his going'. Along these same lines, as Rory (and earlier, Boas) have noted, in some contexts positionals ablaut a preceding stem, e.g., with the future, even when the positional seems to lack an initial a-, cf. =tta=miNkhe 'I will', or =tta=(s^)niNkhe 'you will'. I wonder if those Hidatsa and Crow futures (which look like just a reduced positional as I recall, with *ktE lost) ablaut the preceding stem? Note that Dhegiha positionals following nouns or nominalized (relative) clauses don't seem to induce ablaut. From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 18 02:16:15 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:16:15 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: John wrote: > Dhegiha has pluralizing positionals in its progressive (or continuative?) > forms en lieu of the plural enclitics, and some positionals > (interestingly, I think) start with a-, e.g., ama (and singular akha), > which seem potentially to be from simpler *ma and *kha, cf. =ma 'animate > obviative collective' and =khe 'inanimate or animate obviative supine'. > In addition, the inclusive of positionals like thaN 'animate obviative > standing' or dhiN 'animate obviative moving' have a sort of extra or > "locative" a, e.g., aNgathaN, showing another trace of an a-prefix on > positionals. Whatever this a- is, it might elucidate the a of the plural. > If progressives tended to generalize into aspectually unmarked forms, a > progressive with a positional *=a=pi or *a=tu or *=a=kre might end up an > ablauting plural marker. Of course, I still don't know why or what the > -a-. I have at times considered that it might be some sort of > nominalizer. Progressives might reasonably derive from noun forms, > essentially 'his going'. These are some very interesting ideas. One possibility that occurs to me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. That certainly seems to be a big feature of the /akha/ and /ama/ positionals at any rate. Also, the -e final verbs they use always seem to go to a-grade ablaut. Compare the two sentences from the Dorsey dictionary /akha/ entry that I posted earlier: ShoNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha. The horse ate the corn of his own accord. ShoNge thoN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha. The horse ate the corn given him to eat. In the first sentence, both the positional /akha/ and the declarative =i take a leading a-, while in the second sentence the positional is plain and the declarative becomes =e without leading a-. If this were the case, we'd have to suppose that the "will" forms of the future imply intent, as opposed to the passive potentiality of /tte/. Command particles would also imply intent. The only case that would be problematic to this idea would be the "not" forms, which always cause a-grade ablaut, but which today at least can be used for stative verbs as well as active ones. Perhaps these are just a generalization on earlier active-only forms? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 18 03:59:07 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:59:07 -0600 Subject: More plural. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > These are some very interesting ideas. One possibility that occurs to > me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active > responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. I'm not sure I would agree with this assessment. If -a in ablaut signified intention, then it would be more likely to be characteristic of the first person than the third singular and the plurals (not to mention the negative). If a- (and a-ablaut) in the progressive and future forms marked intention, then it would not be in all forms. In fact, positional-initial-a and a-ablaut are synchronically different things, and, in spite of the list of ablauting forms below, neither seems to be particularly associated with intention. They both behave more like arbitrary morphological patterns. They're more thematic than categorical. All I was trying to suggest myself is that they are somewhat arbitrary morphological facts about the initials of postverbal positionals and the pre-enclitic finals of verbs, leaving us with two traces of a sort of "intervening-a" between verb and enclitics. However, as an intervening marker this a would be more a Pre-Proto-Dhegiha (Proto-Mississippi Valley or Proto-Siouan) phenomenon than a fact of contemporary Dhegiha languages. > Also, the -e final verbs they use always seem to go to a-grade ablaut. > Compare the two sentences from the Dorsey dictionary /akha/ entry that > I posted earlier: > > ShoNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha. > The horse ate the corn of his own accord. > > ShoNge thoN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha. > The horse ate the corn given him to eat. > In the first sentence, both the positional /akha/ and the declarative > =i take a leading a-, while in the second sentence the positional is > plain and the declarative becomes =e without leading a-. Except that =i is not really a declarative, but that "plural/proximate" marker that I still suspect is derived from =bi as well as being in the same inner (but different outer) contexts. The declarative (masculine) here is the (=)ha (modern =ha=u (=ho)). Actually, a better potential example of going to a than the second above might be the third from the original set you cited: ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha The (motionless) horse is eating the corn (which he should not eat). [...] But here we see that the progressive use of akha doesn't condition a-grade ablaut in an e-final verb, while use of akha does do that in the e-final future. > If this were the case, we'd have to suppose that the "will" forms of > the future imply intent, as opposed to the passive potentiality of > /tte/. Command particles would also imply intent. The only case that > would be problematic to this idea would be the "not" forms, which > always cause a-grade ablaut, but which today at least can be used for > stative verbs as well as active ones. Perhaps these are just a > generalization on earlier active-only forms? I think I've missed something. Why are we supposing that a-grades can't occur in statives? I have the impression they did as far back as we can tell. I admit I'm catching up here, reading some newer things before some earlier ones! JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 18 05:40:32 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:40:32 -0600 Subject: More plural (plural enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > No, but I think the second person plural enclitic is *=pV, where V might > be u (from memory). Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu This is a quick summary and may be erronious in some points. It is probably incomplete (in Of, at least) and I will not attempt to describe the principles or syntax of combinations where they can occur. Bi daha is the object plural, while tu is the subject plural. I suspect that the medial (e) in Tutelo is epenthetic, as it is often missing. I've obvious simplified the treatment of Da and Dh. I've omitted Cr and Hi, though I seem to recall that Hi is something like a?a. JEK From rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu Wed Jun 18 14:04:48 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:04:48 -0500 Subject: More plural (plural enclitics) Message-ID: John wrote: > Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi > 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- > 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu > 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu > 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu 1 stands for exclusive, 12 for inclusive, correct? And the 12 in the 1 position for Tutelo means you don't recall what it is, but that it is the same for both forms of we? Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: More plural (plural enclitics) owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 06/18/2003 12:40 AM Please respond to siouan On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > No, but I think the second person plural enclitic is *=pV, where V might > be u (from memory). Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu This is a quick summary and may be erronious in some points. It is probably incomplete (in Of, at least) and I will not attempt to describe the principles or syntax of combinations where they can occur. Bi daha is the object plural, while tu is the subject plural. I suspect that the medial (e) in Tutelo is epenthetic, as it is often missing. I've obvious simplified the treatment of Da and Dh. I've omitted Cr and Hi, though I seem to recall that Hi is something like a?a. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 18 23:56:41 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:56:41 -0600 Subject: More plural (plural enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > John wrote: > > Ma Da/Dh IO Wi Tu Of Bi > > 1 -- -- -- wi 12 -- > > 12 riNt *pi wi wi -- daha/tu > > 2 riNt *pi wi wi pu daha/tu > > 3 krE *pi wi/ne wi/irE h(e)lE tu daha/tu > > 1 stands for exclusive, 12 for inclusive, correct? Right. Not elegant, but fairly clear. > And the 12 in the 1 position for Tutelo means you don't recall > what it is, but that it is the same for both forms of we? Sorry - my omission: It means that you use the historical inclusive form (without any special enclitic) as the plural of the first person. Note that Winnebago is the only Siouan language in which both the first person *and* inclusive can be pluralized. Correlating with this, it seems also to be the only Siouan language in which the inclusive cannot co-occur (in transitives) with either the second person (we-you, you-us) or first person (we-me, I-us). The usual constraint is that it cannot co-occur with the first person (we-me, I-us). Third person with third person (he-him) is, of course, a special case. Anyway, this is the conclusion I draw from Lipkind. General Siouan Winnebago S O O S 1 12 2 3 1 12 2 3 1 - - x x - - x x 1 12 - - x x - - - x 12 2 x x - x x - - x 2 3 x x x x x x x x 3 Incidentally, the missing elements for Ofo I couldn't recall, and I haven't dug up Bob's Ofo grammar summary. In Biloxi the present 1 is the old 12 (used in both singular and plural), and the 1 has been lost, except that some allomorphs of the present 1 may be derived from allomorphs of the old 1. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 19 04:42:58 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:42:58 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide (from ire to ne) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? To specifically address this, you can't get there by regular development. Let us assume that the PS form is *kre, with Mandan surface kere, kara arising from superficial (but universal) epenthesis in clusters as Hollow suggets. In addition, we assume that Tutelo hele, etc., also as frequently or more so hle, etc., reflect a phonetic schwa epenethesis in clusters comparable to that in Dakota or Omaha-Ponca. In that case: Mandan underlying kre is conservative and regular. Tutelo hle suggests *kr > hl (~ hn), not too unreasonable given forms like ki:hniNte 'hungry' or hiNhne 'push, thrust', which look like they might involve *ki-k-r.... However, I have not investigated this correspondence. Winnebago ire might be irregularly reformulated from *kire < *kere, with loss of k. That loss seems reasonable, but I haven't a particular process in mind. IO ne might be from earlier *hre. IO does have hd < *kt, but regular here would be gre. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jun 19 05:25:02 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:25:02 -0600 Subject: Osage Plural Message-ID: I've consulted Carolyn Quintero's dissertation now, and can report that she gives the plural enclitic as api, following Bob's argument that ablaut is elision of the final vowel of the preceding form in favor of the initial vowel of a following enclitic. This approach works especially well in Dhegiha where the operation of ablaut favors the "underlying e" approach and is in general much simpler in operation than in Dakotan. She reports that api + dhe, the declarative, yields ape. Also the positionals akha and apa + dhe yield kxai and (a)pai. She reports eliciting one instance of future + evidential (what I've sometimes called the 'future of surity' though maybe future of assurance or evidential future would be better). This example was aNka'hi hta ch (i.e., probably ... hta che) 'we will be there'. Note that this agrees with OP in having the a-grade of ablaut. It is probably a dual inclusive, but might be plural. It lacks a plural marker, in any event, but *the takes the expected form che (tsHe). Looking in Dorsey's Osage Traditions, I find various examples of this evidential future in the form: JOD 1888:382.16 z^iNka z^uika aNkukice htache child body we seek our own FUT EVID This would be analogous to OP z^iNga z^uga aNgugine ttathe I also find find a plural form 1888:383.28 aNka'ghe htapeche we make FUT EVID Analogous OP would be aNgaghe ttaithe Another example of the plural (actually proximate in this case) is apiNtau 'he really said', which appears in every line of the tradition. I take this to be something like a=pi(N)=t(h?)au. The first part would be like OP a=i 'he said' (or a=bi in a=bi=ama 'he said, they say'), though the nasalization is puzzling. The latter part is obscure. I suspect it might be something like the EVID + (dh)a=u DECLm, but that would mean that che EVID had an underlying form the in which th was retained if elision removed the root vowel e. Another example of a simple proximate occurs in 1888:393.46 nihkas^iNka wiN sikdha=pe che person a has left a trail Like OP nikkas^iNga wiN sigdha=(b)i=the Of course, it could be argued that everything here is referred to authority, and so would take =pi, but if there were ever an =i, it seems surprising that it should be eliminated in favor of the much more marked =bi form (the opposite of affairs in OP). In fact, it seems that only OP ever had a form =i, which I continue to feel is more likely to derive from =bi than an ancient parallel marker =i lost everywhere else. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jun 18 20:11:32 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:11:32 -0500 Subject: More "ablaut". Message-ID: Rory writes: > > One possibility that occurs to > > me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active > > responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. John writes: > In fact, positional-initial-a and a-ablaut are synchronically different > things, Diachronically too, I think. When I said that the so-called "ablauting" vowel could be a morpheme, I didn't mean "now": I meant something like a couple of thousand years ago. Now, the "ablauting" /-a/ is pretty clearly associated with just 3 or 4 suffixes/enclitics including 'imperative', 'plural' and 'negative' (and may always have been). I didn't mean to open the door to bringing back discussions of the "meaning" of ablaut and segmenting *-api as just -pi. In Mississippi Valley Siouan I regard such discussions as "Dakota-centric" and essentially behind us unless data of the following sort can be clearly isolated (preferably in volunteered, not elicited, speech). Instances in which the *same verb* with the *same plural, imperative or negative enclitic/suffix* can be seen to have different readings with -e than with -a between the root and the clitic/suffix. I think keeping all other variables constant is essential to proof because other verbs offer different phonological environments and, just as important, different opportunities for analogical restructuring. Returning to John's discussion of the -a that is used with positionals, this may be a relatively simple analogical development using 3rd sg. -api/-ape as a model. Or it could also be related to the so-called 'collective' prefix a- used with verbs of motion. Either source (or both of them together) provide(s) a good model for using an analogous a- with positional auxiliaries, although with positionals there may be other possible sources too. All the discussions are useful though. There is so much we don't know about these languages. Rory's examples with the horse eating the food with various presuppositions were fascinating. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jun 19 19:41:20 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:41:20 -0500 Subject: More plural. Message-ID: Well, let's see if the third time's the charm in getting this thing to post! It's amazing how much trouble a slight change to one's return address can cause. John wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: >> These are some very interesting ideas. One possibility that occurs to >> me for that -a- is that it might signal something like active >> responsibility or intention on the part of the actor. > > I'm not sure I would agree with this assessment. [...] > > In fact, positional-initial-a and a-ablaut are synchronically different > things, and, in spite of the list of ablauting forms below, neither seems > to be particularly associated with intention. They both behave more like > arbitrary morphological patterns. They're more thematic than categorical. > All I was trying to suggest myself is that they are somewhat arbitrary > morphological facts about the initials of postverbal positionals and the > pre-enclitic finals of verbs, leaving us with two traces of a sort of > "intervening-a" between verb and enclitics. However, as an intervening > marker this a would be more a Pre-Proto-Dhegiha (Proto-Mississippi Valley > or Proto-Siouan) phenomenon than a fact of contemporary Dhegiha languages. That's the time frame I had in mind. I was responding to your original suggestion that the leading a- of /akha/ and /ama/ might be a separate element appended to the /khe/ and /ma/ positionals, and that the same -a- was also appended to pluralizing particles to produce a-grade ablaut in that case. You said that you didn't know just what this a- meant, but had thought it might be a nominalizer. I made the suggestion that it might have signalled intention or responsibility of the actor, and discussed that possibility in the context of OP. I didn't mean to suggest that our hypothetical -a- element was still productive as such in OP or any of the other historical languages! > If -a in ablaut signified intention, then it would be more > likely to be characteristic of the first person than the > third singular and the plurals (not to mention the negative). > If a- (and a-ablaut) in the progressive and future forms > marked intention, then it would not be in all forms. I wonder if you could elaborate on this argument; I'm not following it. Why would you assume that an element signalling responsibility or intentionality would be more likely found in the first person than in the third? If you're speaking of your own actions, isn't your intentionality either obvious, or perhaps too delicate an issue to discuss? And in any case, are we sure that this -a- wasn't originally used in first person singular? If we once had something like /*pre-a/, "I go intentionally", and /*re-a-ire/, "They go intentionally", then simple reduction processes might have clipped the first to /*pre-/, and the second to /*ra-ire/. The fact that we find a-grade ablaut before different particles of plurality likely just means that an original -a- particle was locked in place when it was followed by another particle such as a pluralizer or a command particle, while it would simply be dropped without affecting preceding -e if nothing followed it. Compare the situation in modern Omaha, where last century's ubiquitous =i particles all seem to have disappeared except when followed by command particles or /the/. >> Also, the -e final verbs they use always seem to go to a-grade ablaut. >> Compare the two sentences from the Dorsey dictionary /akha/ entry that >> I posted earlier: >> >> ShoNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha. >> The horse ate the corn of his own accord. >> >> ShoNge thoN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha. >> The horse ate the corn given him to eat. >> >> In the first sentence, both the positional /akha/ and the declarative >> =i take a leading a-, while in the second sentence the positional is >> plain and the declarative becomes =e without leading a-. > Except that =i is not really a declarative, but that "plural/proximate" > marker that I still suspect is derived from =bi as well as being in the > same inner (but different outer) contexts. The declarative (masculine) > here is the (=)ha (modern =ha=u (=ho)). I don't think the =ha/=he particles are exactly declaratives in OP. They can be used to terminate not only a statement, but a command. In this case they are added after the command particle. In either case, they are optional. My sense of them is that they constitute an emphatic period to the sentence. They seem to mean: "Hey! Wake up and grasp what I just said!" On the other hand, I believe the =i and =e particles (and the =akha in the example given below) are functioning as declaratives. They are not optional; you need one of them here (in 19th century OP) to complete the sentence. The =i is certainly not a pluralizer in this context, though it is probably historically derived from one. I don't think the term "proximate" is entirely well defined yet for OP. (Wouldn't these two sentences be a classic example of the difference between "proximate" and "obviative"?) In any case, declaring proximativity shouldn't make =i any less of a declarative. What do you mean by inner and outer contexts? > Actually, a better potential example of going to a than the second above > might be the third from the original set you cited: > > ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha > The (motionless) horse is eating the corn > (which he should not eat). [...] > > But here we see that the progressive use of akha doesn't condition a-grade > ablaut in an e-final verb, while use of akha does do that in the e-final > future. Again, I agree with you that ablaut is a feature that goes back to PS or MVS. This progressive use of akha is transparent by present or recent OP rules of sentence construction, and would have nothing to do with ancient ablaut. I would suppose that the general future form *kte=a=POS goes back much farther, and appears in Dhegiha as *tta=POS. More recently, the positional akha would have been substituted for POS, keeping the preceding tta by analogy. That tta=akha is a grammatically recent innovation is shown by the fact that our hypothetical -a- is now doubled here, which would not have happened if it were still active and semantically understood. >> If this were the case, we'd have to suppose that the "will" forms of >> the future imply intent, as opposed to the passive potentiality of >> /tte/. Command particles would also imply intent. The only case that >> would be problematic to this idea would be the "not" forms, which >> always cause a-grade ablaut, but which today at least can be used for >> stative verbs as well as active ones. Perhaps these are just a >> generalization on earlier active-only forms? > I think I've missed something. Why are we supposing that a-grades can't > occur in statives? I have the impression they did as far back as we can > tell. I admit I'm catching up here, reading some newer things before some > earlier ones! To the extent that a-grades occur with statives, problems are raised for my hypothesis that -a- marked intentionality or responsibility of action. In OP, we have the following possible reflexes of our hypothetical -a-: a=kha and a=ma. These two positionals imply intentional or responsible action, or the role that you describe as "proximate". The presumed root positionals khe and ma do not. Hypothesis works. a-grade ablaut before command particles. We command someone to take intentional, directed action. I don't believe we ever use a command particle with a stative verb in OP; e.g. /saba ga!/, "Be black!" Hypothesis works (I think). tte=>tta before POS to indicate intentionality for the future. Hypothesis works. a-grade ablaut before NEG. Here, I believe that we can have stative verbs preceding NEG that take a-grade ablaut. I can wriggle out of this by assuming that the present NEG form with a-grade ablaut was secondarily extended to cover stative verbs as well as active, but my hypothesis takes a hit. Hypothesis fails. a-grade ablaut before =bi and =i. These are presumably pluralizers historically. Either an active verb or a stative verb can potentially be pluralized, but only an active verb should ever have a particle of intentionality or responsibility associated with it. Hence, if we should find that one of these particles could be used for both active and stative verbs, then my hypothesis would predict that it would condition a-grade ablaut for at least some (most) active verbs, but not for stative verbs. For OP, =bi and =i always produce a-grade ablaut, but I don't think they are ever used with stative verbs. Hypothesis not contradicted. Can you offer any information on a-grade ablauting with statives? Comparative Siouan is fair game! Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jun 20 16:50:57 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:57 -0500 Subject: More "ablaut". Message-ID: Bob wrote: > Diachronically too, I think. When I said that the > so-called "ablauting" vowel could be a morpheme, I > didn't mean "now": I meant something like a couple of > thousand years ago. Now, the "ablauting" /-a/ is > pretty clearly associated with just 3 or 4 > suffixes/enclitics including 'imperative', 'plural' and > 'negative' (and may always have been). I think we're all in agreement on this. If it seemed that I was claiming an ablauting /-a/ particle for modern OP, then I wasn't writing very clearly. > I didn't mean > to open the door to bringing back discussions of the > "meaning" of ablaut and segmenting *-api as just -pi. > In Mississippi Valley Siouan I regard such discussions > as "Dakota-centric" and essentially behind us unless > data of the following sort can be clearly isolated > (preferably in volunteered, not elicited, speech). > > Instances in which the *same verb* with the *same > plural, imperative or negative enclitic/suffix* can be > seen to have different readings with -e than with -a > between the root and the clitic/suffix. I think > keeping all other variables constant is essential to > proof because other verbs offer different phonological > environments and, just as important, different > opportunities for analogical restructuring. That would certainly be the gold standard. I wonder though if you would be willing to bend the *same verb* rule just a little bit here. What if we find a systematic alternation of -e vs. -a grade ablaut with the same enclitic/suffix, according to the semantic class of the preceding verb? Specifically, I'm thinking of the Winnebago 3rd plural suffix =ire. This apparently conditions a-grade ablaut after active verbs ending in -e, as /xe/ + /=ire/ => /xaire/. I have the sense, however, that this does not hold for stative verbs. Thus, if a verb /###e/ is stative, we should get /###e/ + /=ire/ => /###eire/. I'm not sure yet if this is a solid rule or not. It's possible that the one word I've seen in that format was a specialized international term that was incorporated whole without ablauting simply because ablauting was no longer a productive rule. I'm hoping the Hocank specialists can give us a definite answer on this question. (Johannes Helmbrecht has been very generous with his help to a Hocank tyro already!) Rory From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Jun 21 20:32:37 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:32:37 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go back to *r. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > John wrote: > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > situations. > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > my ointment! However, > > Bob wrote: > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > what it contrasts with. > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > MVS: =i(*r)e > | > --------------------- > | | > | Dh: =i(*r)e > | | > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > | | > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > have: > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > ablaut in this case. > > > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > correct? > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > There is presumably some subtle difference in > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > The process is similar to English "should have" > first being slurred to "should've" and then > reconstructed as "should of". > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > behind a few traces of its original presence in > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > This is what will have happened in OP. > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jun 21 21:49:53 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:49:53 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: I think it is Proto-Siouan *y that becomes ch in Dakotan, zh in Dhegiha, etc. Proto-Siouan *r becomes Dakotan y~l~n. Epenthesis at different times has yielded different results. Older epentheses seem to yield reflexes of *r while new ones yield reflexes [y] and [w] both. Also, we need to remember that in Dakotan, the *r that is inserted after possessive i- shows y-like reflexes. We explain a number of strange Dakotan ch's like 'ice' in this manner as I recall. I'm in Bloomington and don't have my notes with me though. But I think 'kettle' is another. These are the result of *ir sequences as I recall though. Bob -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Sent: 6/21/2003 3:32 PM Subject: Re: epenthetic glide. Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go back to *r. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > John wrote: > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > situations. > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > my ointment! However, > > Bob wrote: > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > what it contrasts with. > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > MVS: =i(*r)e > | > --------------------- > | | > | Dh: =i(*r)e > | | > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > | | > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > have: > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > ablaut in this case. > > > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > correct? > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > There is presumably some subtle difference in > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > The process is similar to English "should have" > first being slurred to "should've" and then > reconstructed as "should of". > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > behind a few traces of its original presence in > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > This is what will have happened in OP. > > Rory > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Jun 22 01:14:15 2003 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:14:15 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: That Lakhota "kaga" would actually be /kagha/, wouldn't it? And the /kichagha/ would then correspond directly to OP /giaghe/? Rory ROOD DAVID S cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: epenthetic glide. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 06/21/2003 03:32 PM Please respond to siouan Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go back to *r. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > John wrote: > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > situations. > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > my ointment! However, > > Bob wrote: > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > what it contrasts with. > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > MVS: =i(*r)e > | > --------------------- > | | > | Dh: =i(*r)e > | | > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > | | > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > have: > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > ablaut in this case. > > > John wrote: > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > enye before i). > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > correct? > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > There is presumably some subtle difference in > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > The process is similar to English "should have" > first being slurred to "should've" and then > reconstructed as "should of". > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > behind a few traces of its original presence in > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > This is what will have happened in OP. > > Rory > > From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun Jun 22 03:11:40 2003 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (Linda Cumberland) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:11:40 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For the sake of comparison I'll throw this in. I checked this Lakhota anomaly for Assiniboine and found the regular form 'kicag^a', i.e., no aspiration: waxpe mijijag^a 'he made tea for me' It would be interesting to know whether aspiration was introduced into the Lakhota form or if Assiniboine leveled the anomaly. Jundging from David's comments I'd guess the latter. I have found several instances where Lakhota irregularities are regular in Assiniboine. This is one case, another (which has nothing to do with epenthetic glides, but supports my growing sense that there has been a lot of leveling in Asb) is the paradigm for yutA 'eat', which is a completely regular y-stem in Assiniboine (note: Asb does not ablaut word finally): Asb: Lak: 1s mnuta wate 2s nuta yate 3s yuta yute 1pl uNyutapi uNyuta pi 2pl nutapi yata pi 3pl yutapi yuta pi Linda ------------------- > > Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read the > rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing Wichita > in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. > > I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue of > IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was to > figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has an > irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected kicaga). > What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, and > the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the > initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative chronologies > would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem to go > back to *r. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > > > > John wrote: > > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in Proto-Mississippi > > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for epenthetic > > > situations. > > > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > > my ointment! However, > > > > Bob wrote: > > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > > what it contrasts with. > > > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > > > MVS: =i(*r)e > > | > > --------------------- > > | | > > | Dh: =i(*r)e > > | | > > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > > | | > > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > > have: > > > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > > ablaut in this case. > > > > > > John wrote: > > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd have to > > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - pronounced with > > > enye before i). > > > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was generalized > > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from the third, > > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that have it. > > > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > > correct? > > > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > > There is presumably some subtle difference in > > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > > The process is similar to English "should have" > > first being slurred to "should've" and then > > reconstructed as "should of". > > > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > > behind a few traces of its original presence in > > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > > This is what will have happened in OP. > > > > Rory > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Jun 22 06:26:00 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:26:00 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: <200306220311.WAA15397@indiana.edu> Message-ID: Answering both Rory and Linda: Rory, I use the letter "g" between vowels in Lakhota for the voiced velar fricative, the voiced equivalent of IPA [x]. In printed materials, that "g" usually has a dot over it. I suspect that's what you mean by "gh", so I think the answer to your question is yes. Linda, in Lakhota there is a contrast between kichaga and kicaga. The former is only the suus form (he made his own); the first person of that paradigm is we*chage, 'I made mine'. The latter, regular form is the dative; its first person from would be wakicage. 'I made it for her'. Your example is a dative, so it would be regular "kicage" in Lakhota, too. The observation that I made in that little paper in 1985 is that Lak. and Dhegiha both have one highly irregular paradigm and one quite regular paradigm which seem to use the "ki (gi in Dhegiha)" prefix. In Lak., the irregular one is the suus, the regular one the dative for most verbs, whereas in Dhegiha it's the other way around: the suus is the more regular one. So I think the historically formal Dhegiha correspondent with kichaga is giaghe, as Rory says, but the two words do not mean the same thing. I don't know what the suus form would be in Omaha. Anyway, the historical challenge is to figure out how this apparent flip-flop in meanings could occur, as well as explaining the c/ch contrast. I proposed that the "ch" is not derived from the "k" of the stem but rather, as in Dhegiha, from a form in which the "k" had been deleted. Hence the Lakhota evolution is something like **kiage > *kiyage > kichage, and the synchronic idea that "k" > "ch" in this verb is an illusion, and there was no "introduction of aspiration". Hence the comment that "ch" is in some sense "epenthetic" here. As for the meaning flip-flop, I only pointed out the observation in Boas and Deloria that these two paradigms get mixed up even in Lakhota, varying from verb to verb and even from speaker family to speaker family as to whether the regular one is dative or suus or whether there even is a contrast. I said this a lot more clearly in the paper, I think. It's less than 3 pages long if you want to dig it out. Two theories about Assiniboine: (1) they may have neutralized the two paradigms, dropping the irregular one, as has happened in many Lakhota verbs, or (2) you may not have elicited the suus forms (they don't come up very often in real life). I suppose it's also possible that they never developed the irregular one, but that would require that Lak. and Assinib. had separated before the suus froms evolved, which would be longer ago than I think is likely. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Linda Cumberland wrote: > For the sake of comparison I'll throw this in. I checked this Lakhota > anomaly for Assiniboine and found the regular form 'kicag^a', i.e., no > aspiration: > > waxpe mijijag^a 'he made tea for me' > > It would be interesting to know whether aspiration was introduced into > the Lakhota form or if Assiniboine leveled the anomaly. Jundging from > David's comments I'd guess the latter. I have found several instances > where Lakhota irregularities are regular in Assiniboine. This is one > case, another (which has nothing to do with epenthetic glides, but > supports my growing sense that there has been a lot of leveling in > Asb) is the paradigm for yutA 'eat', which is a completely regular > y-stem in Assiniboine (note: Asb does not ablaut word finally): > > Asb: Lak: > > 1s mnuta wate > 2s nuta yate > 3s yuta yute > 1pl uNyutapi uNyuta pi > 2pl nutapi yata pi > 3pl yutapi yuta pi > > Linda > ------------------- > > > > Sorry to be coming in to this discussion late (and not to have read > the > > rest of of it yet -- maybe this is superfluous). I've been doing > Wichita > > in Anadarko for the past couple of weeks. > > > > I think it's relevnat to remind you of my little blurb in the issue > of > > IJAL that was dedicated to Eric Hamp (October 1985). My concern was > to > > figure out why the suus form of the Lakhota verb "kaga" 'make' has > an > > irregular aspirated "ch" for the "k" (kichaga, not the expected > kicaga). > > What's relevant here is that this aspirated "ch" reflects PMV *y, > and > > the *y has to have been an epenthetic element after deletion of the > > initial "k" of the verb. I don't know what the relative > chronologies > > would be, but it is NOT the case that all epenthetic situations seem > to go > > back to *r. > > > > David S. Rood > > Dept. of Linguistics > > Univ. of Colorado > > 295 UCB > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > USA > > rood at colorado.edu > > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > > > > > > > > John wrote: > > > > Actually, it seems likely that the -y- stage was in > Proto-Mississippi > > > > Valley, since all of the MV languages have reflexes of *r for > epenthetic > > > > situations. > > > > > > Hmm. I was afraid of that. Thanks to John > > > for his thorough discussion of this fly in > > > my ointment! However, > > > > > > Bob wrote: > > > > As John points out, lots of western hemisphere > > > > languages simply use a tap or flap to separate vowels > > > > in hiatus. There's no need to go through the phonetic > > > > [y] stage. It is possible that Common Siouan /r/ is or > > > > was phonetically 'dh'. Its reflexes turn up as a host > > > > of (mostly) dental liquid sounds, dh, r, n, l, t, and > > > > even y in sundry languages and dialects. The important > > > > thing isn't so much its precise phonetic reality but > > > > what it contrasts with. > > > > > > So perhaps I don't really need to worry about > > > the sound being precisely a phonetic [y]. Just > > > being as close in the neighborhood as [r] or [dh] > > > may be good enough. All I need is for the (*r) > > > in *=ire to go away if the final -e is clipped. > > > So if (*r) represents whatever sound in the [r], > > > [y], [dh] range, I would propose this development > > > of *=ire for Winnebago and OP: > > > > > > MVS: =i(*r)e > > > | > > > --------------------- > > > | | > > > | Dh: =i(*r)e > > > | | > > > | =i(*r) (-e is clipped) > > > | | > > > Wi: =ire OP: =i ((*r) goes away) > > > > > > > > > Now if we take the verb /xe/, "bury", in plain form > > > and the two alternate 3rd person plural forms, we > > > have: > > > > > > MVS: *xe *xa=pi *xa=ire > > > > > > Wi: xe xa=wi xa=ire > > > > > > OP: xe xa=bi xa=i > > > > > > I've taken the Winnebago /xe/ example (via memory) > > > from Lipkind. Note that =ire conditions a-grade > > > ablaut in this case. > > > > > > > > > John wrote: > > > > This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, though ideally we'd > have to > > > > understand the introduction of i into -ire (cf. IO -ne - > pronounced with > > > > enye before i). > > > > > > Do you see a problem with reconstructing MVS *=ire? > > > I think you were coming up with *=krE for PS. > > > Would *=kirE work? Or do you mean that we can't > > > get from MVS /*=ire/ to IO /=ne/? > > > > > > > > > > Apart from that we'd have to assume that this source of i was > generalized > > > > from the third person to the inclusive and second persons from > the third, > > > > which is where this marker occurs in the Siouan languages that > have it. > > > > > > Yes, and also from 3rd plural to 3rd singular in > > > the declarative form, if the other ones are all > > > like Winnebago. For this matter, I think we might > > > want to consider a hybrid explanation. I've been > > > insisting that =bi and =i are separate words in > > > OP, while John and Bob have been equally insistent > > > that =i is a phonological reduction of =bi, because > > > they are so very similar phonologically, syntactically > > > and semantically. Well, why couldn't both views be > > > correct? > > > > > > Suppose the sequence I propose above is correct, > > > with *=i < *=i(*r)e coming down to proto-Dhegiha > > > or proto-OP as an alternate 3rd person pluralizer. > > > *=pi|*=bi is the general pluralizer, and is also > > > used for the 3rd person singular declarative. > > > There is presumably some subtle difference in > > > meaning between the two particles, else the *=i(*r)e > > > form would not have been retained. But when *=i(*r)e > > > is reduced to *=i, the two become very confusable. > > > When the stop part of *=pi is elided in rapid speech, > > > it comes out as [i], which is interpreted as *=i(re). > > > Following slurred *=pi, a reconstructed *=i appears > > > in all the locations originally reserved to *=pi. > > > The process is similar to English "should have" > > > first being slurred to "should've" and then > > > reconstructed as "should of". > > > > > > Now the difference between *=pi and *=i depends on > > > whatever sematic distinction they carry. If this > > > difference is weak, then *=i is regarded as simply > > > a slurred variant of the more proper *=pi. In this > > > case, the old *=i(*r)e particle dies out, even in > > > its original 3rd plural position, perhaps leaving > > > behind a few traces of its original presence in > > > fossil "diphthongs" such as /tta=i=che/. This is > > > what will have happened in Osage and Kaw. > > > > > > If the semantic distinction is strengthened, > > > however, then the original 3rd plural *=i(*r)e > > > element bursts its cage and becomes a completely > > > parallel, but separate, form that needs to be > > > rigorously distinguished from the *=pi form. > > > This is what will have happened in OP. > > > > > > Rory > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Jun 22 18:01:08 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:01:08 -0600 Subject: correction and regrets Message-ID: First, Jan Ullrich has pointed out to me that I cited a non-existent form in my email at midnight last night. The dative first person of 'to make' in Lakhota is wecage, not the wakicage that I made up (that does not exist). It's still the case that there is a contrast between the -ch- suus forms and the -c- dative forms, however. Thanks, Jan, for setting the record straight. Second, I regret that I will be unable to attend the conference again this year. I had hoped that we would agree to meet in July, but that wasn't the wish of most of us. I have family obligations from July 26-Aug. 16 that will keep me at home. Best wishes to all who attend for another useful and friendly meeting. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jun 22 22:37:20 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:37:20 -0500 Subject: glides, etc. Message-ID: Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe Lak. kichagha < *ki-r-agha where prefixal [ir] > [ich] in numerous forms as mentioned yesterday. Dakotan kicagha or AS gijagha would have to be from earlier *kikagha. So David was exactly right about the source of aspirated [ch] in the one form, except that the *iy that gives his ich is from the sequence *ir preaccentually and is a normal reflex of such a sequence. Right? Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jun 23 09:49:33 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:49:33 -0600 Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: (Basic stem) > Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. (Suus stem) > Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem) Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem). OP *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative stem. Here are the comparisons that seem to me to work best. Category PMV? La OP Base 1 *p- kaghE wa-kaghA p- paghE 2 *s^-kaghE ya-kaghA s^-kaghE 3 kaghE kaghA gaghE Suus 1 *wa-ki-k-kaghE we-c^haghA a-gi-p- paghE 2 *ra-ki-k-kaghE ye-c^haghA dha-gi-s^-kaghe 3 *ki-k-kaghE ki-c^haghA gi-k- kaghE Dat 1 *wa-ki-kaghE we-c^aghA e-p- paghE 2 *ra-ki-kaghE ye-c^aghA dhe-s^-kaghE 3 ki-kaghE ki-c^aghA gi- aghE Although the regular datives and possessives are, as David notes, reversed in form between Dakotan and Omaha-Ponca (and Southern Dhegiha and IO-Winnebago show additional patterns), their datives and suus actually match pretty well for consonant-initial stems. The following developments elucidate matters here: - Dakotan loses the consonant initial pattern with the basic transitive stem of this verb, and transfers it to the regular paradigm. - Dakota, of course, affricates k to c^ after i, and kh to c^h, etc. - In the first person of the basic transitive Dhegiha assimilates the initial k of the stem to the *p (or *w or *b) of the first person, so the first person comes out p-paghe, instead of, say, *k-kaghe or *p-kaghe. - In the Suus (or Possessive) stem this verb has always had *ki reduced to k- (as *wa and *ra, earlier *ya, reduce to *p and *s^, and this *k- has been supplemented by adding a regular *ki- to the front of it, producing a prefixal pattern *ki-k- that appears throughout the suus forms of Dhegiha and (less obviously) in Dakotan. - Dakota contracts the pronouns with the underlying ki in the suus, as Omaha-Ponca (but not Southern Dhegiha) does in the Dative, leading to we-, ye- instead of *wa-ki-, *ya-ki and e-, dhe- instead of *a-gi-, *dha-gi-. - OP inflects the suus and dative of consonant-stems doubly. Withhout going into the details, I think this arises in two slightly different ways. With the suus it is analogical and replaces earlier *a-gi-k-, *dha-gi-k-, *gi-k- with a-gi-p-, dha-gi-s^-, gi-k-, however that would work out for the particular kind of consonant stems. The analogies are much clearer if you look at the full set of forms. In some cases (*p- and *t-stems) only the second person actually changes. With the dative it's a result of applying the regular dative over the basic transitive. - The contraction of *gi-gaghe to gi-aghe in the third person of the datives looks like it might be a transfer (i.e., a contamination) from the pattern of the dative of *ka-instrumentals, which look like they lose initial *k throughout and loses it also in the first and second persons of the basic transitive. Comparisons with Crow and Hisatsa suggest that this instrumental is really something like *raka (third person) ~ *aka (first and second persons), however. - Actually, though I've been taking the traditional point of view, that both the suus and dative have *ki, only these two *ki's behave differently in each language, there's a pretty good chance that the dative was something like *riki ~ *iki (patterning like the *raka- instrumental) instead of *ki. This seems to work better than assuming two identical morphemes being kept separate by a series of desperate morphological expedients. Unfortunately, I don't think *riki- is actually attested anywhere, unlike *raka- which is. - So, if you're still with me, to bring a long story to a sudden ending, the source of c^h in the suus of Dakotan - I guess I should say Teton - *k-stems (kagha 'to make', kuNza 'to decree') is probably *k-k-/*ki-__, not *y, though the latter does (also) become c^h. In Dhegiha the *k-k- sequence is indistinguishable from *hk-, i.e., it become kk or hk, depending on the language's phonetics. The same is true, in fact, of all *CC (or *hC) sequences, where C is a stop. However, all *hC (where C is a stop) become *Ch in Dakotan, cf. OP kke 'turtle' vs. Dakotan khe(ya), etc. And thanks to the pleonastic *ki- preceding our *k-k-, that kh is after a Ce (< *Ca-(k)i-) or ki- that affricates it to c^h. I say this with a certain amount of deference, because the morphological context is complex, even if the phonology is simple, and because I really hate to contradict one (actually two) of my favorite teachers, but I think all of the logic applied holds water, and it does eliminate an otherwise troublesome exceptional case in the development of Dakotan epenthesis. Note that I have accidentally cited a probable additional example of -y- epenthesis < *r in Dakotan in the form of kheya < *hke-r-a, where -a is the -a of s^uNk-a, cf. heya < *he-r-a (OP he), wiNyaN 'woman' < wiN-r-a (OP miN), and a few other examples. In this last case the historical stem is probably *wiNh-, but the h is lost in Mississippi Valley. > Lak. kichagha < *ki-r-agha where prefixal [ir] > [ich] in numerous > forms as mentioned yesterday. Those are an interesting collection of forms - a group of forms, mostly inalienable, hence with prefixes *wi/*ri/*i - that have c^h (< *y) where Dhegiha has reflexes of *r. I necessarily take them to be something different. My suspicion is that Dakota is right about *y, and that Dhegiha popped those *y into the epenthetic *-y- > *-r- set irregularly, merging them with the real *r- forms. Since most Siouan languages brutally merge all *y and *r into one segment more or less *r-like, this is not too surprising. It's worth noting that the second person pronoun has a similar problem. We're pretty sure from Southeastern that it was *ya, and this seems consistant with *s^- as the short form of the second person (< *y-?). But all of the MV languages that distinguish *y and *r plop for *ra as the second person (Dakotan ya-, not *c^ha-; Dhegiha dha-, not *z^a-, though z^- does show up with Dh ?-stems, suggesting that Da n- there is contamination from the *r-stems). In this case Dakotan agrees with Dhegiha (and, of course *ra- > ya- in Dakotan). But notice that the contraction of *w-yi- in the A1P2 form is c^hi < *yi- in Dakotan. Of course, Dhegiha unhelpfully has wi- < *w-yi-, maybe via w-ii-? By analogy with Dakotan you'd expect *z^i-, but you don't get it. And IO and Winnebago are no help either, since they merge *y and *r, and have ri(i)- and niNiN-, respectively. IO does have occasional y < *y (via *z^, maybe, since that also becomes y), but only in a few places, and not here. However, Mandan comes through with miNniN- < *w-yi(N)-, for which I have always been profoundly grateful! Note that the nasalization of the second person patient form comes and goes across Siouan. I suspect it's secondary, perhaps by analogy with the first person patient *waN- which does seem to be nasal. I hope this helps more than it off-puts [incorporation with fronting] JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 06:37:37 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:37:37 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: <200306220311.WAA15397@indiana.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Linda Cumberland wrote: > It would be interesting to know whether aspiration was introduced into > the Lakhota form or if Assiniboine leveled the anomaly. Jundging from > David's comments I'd guess the latter. I'd argue the same even deriving the aspiration from *hk representing syncopated *k(i)-k... in *ki-k(i)-kaghA > I have found several instances where Lakhota irregularities are > regular in Assiniboine. This is one case, another (which has nothing > to do with epenthetic glides, but supports my growing sense that there > has been a lot of leveling in Asb) is the paradigm for yutA 'eat', > which is a completely regular y-stem in Assiniboine (note: Asb does > not ablaut word finally): > > Asb: Lak: > > 1s mnuta wate > 2s nuta yate > 3s yuta yute > 1pl uNyutapi uNyuta pi > 2pl nutapi yata pi > 3pl yutapi yuta pi I suspect this also leveled. As I recall Winnebago has 1 haac^ < *wa-te 2 raac^ < *ra-te 3 ruuc^ < *rute However, Dhegiha as a whole simply loses this suppletive stem for 'eat'. Though that is a case of negative evidence, it seems plausible that part of the explanation for the loss is the irregularity of this stem. Isn't the pattern rounded out with wotA for the detransitivized stem? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 07:33:15 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:33:15 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I think it is Proto-Siouan *y that becomes ch in Dakotan, zh in Dhegiha, > etc. Proto-Siouan *r becomes Dakotan y~l~n. True, although, it might be more precise to say that *r becomes Dakotan y and Dhegiha dh (with special developments in some dialects, i.e., d in Quapaw and y in Kaw). It's *R that becomes Dakotan l ~ d ~ n and Dhegiha n (OP), t ~ c (merger with *t) (Os), and so on. But *r develops as *R in certain clusters, i.e., s^r in Dakotan and Dhegiha and *pr (or *wr or *br) in Dakotan, but not Dhegiha (except in nouns). Dakotan, of course, loses s^ in *s^R < *s^r in the second persons of *r-stems, and OP does between the 1880s and today. So, you find in 'to go': PMV La OP Os *p-re ble bdhe bre (bdhe, but with dh like an r in context) *s^-re le (s^)ne sce *re ye dhe dhe And you can compare these with *pre ble ne ce 'lake' *Rez^e lez^e nez^e cez^e 'urine' The observation that *R behaves like *r in some clusters is presumably what led Kaufman to reconstruct *?r for the *R correspondence, where ? (an apostrophe - glottal stop) is something like the old Bloomfield theta in Algonquian, as is R, really. The *R correspondence was first noticed by Dorsey, but I think thereafter neglected until Kaufman. I first noticed it in Dorsey's Comparative Phonology, in spite of having earlier seen Kaufman's *?r, and originally thought it might be a development of an allophone of *t (matched by *W for *p). > Epenthesis at different times has yielded different results. Older > epentheses seem to yield reflexes of *r while new ones yield reflexes > [y] and [w] both. Also, we need to remember that in Dakotan, the *r > that is inserted after possessive i- shows y-like reflexes. We > explain a number of strange Dakotan ch's like 'ice' in this manner as > I recall. I'm in Bloomington and don't have my notes with me though. > But I think 'kettle' is another. These are the result of *ir > sequences as I recall though. These are not the sets I was thinking of. Here we have La OP 'ice' c^hagha nughe 'pot' ch^egha neghe Here Dakotan is the odd man out, with c^h < *y in sets where others like OP show *R (or *wr, cf. Cr bilaxa and buluxa). The 'ice' set in particular tends to accumulate nasal vowel variants instead of *o. I've sometimes wondered if Teton legha 'glittering; might not be a better match for the 'pot' set. The Dakotan forms simply look like they don't belong, but you have to wonder. The sets I was thinking of were like: 'heart' c^haNte naNde I was arguing that these derived from original forms like *i-yaNt- '(one's) heart', which in PMV dialects underlying Dhegiha was interpreted as **i-y-aNte and underwent rhotacism to *i-r-aNte. Subsequently, with widespread loss of inalienable inflection of body parts, some PMV dialects had *yaNt-e, while others had *raNt-e. We can suspect that the *-e is separable here, because some dialects evidently had *yaNt-ka or *raNt-ka (cf. Winnebago naNaNc^ge). Forms like 'ice' and 'pot' could be handled similarly, assuming inalienable senses like '(one's) pot' or '(it's) congealed skin' (or water), but the hitch here is that these forms do not consistently show nasal vowels, so there is nothing to explain OP n, for example. And, in fact, the 'heart' forms have reflexes of *r/ _VN, while 'ice' and 'pot have reflexes of *R/ _V(oral). They just look similar in OP. JEK From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 24 16:35:16 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:35:16 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Isn't the pattern rounded out with wotA for the detransitivized stem? This one is slightly more regular, but with variation from speaker to speaker. I usually hear wowate, woyate, wote, wo'uNyutapi, but Buechel's grammar gives wawate, wayate, wote, wauNyutapi (with wauNtapi in parentheses -- I assume the absence of the glottal stop in the Buechel citations won't puzzle anyone; he simply didn't write it between vowels). There are a number of other words that indicate an old rule converting ayu to o, which explains the third person form, but the others are clearly re-analyzed from that or re-derived from the transitive forms. David From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jun 24 16:59:45 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:59:45 -0500 Subject: epenthetic glide. Message-ID: "heart" goes back to PSI *y probably, given the OVS cognates. Even there the distinction *r/*y may be neutralized after *i-. I'll have to get home before I can retrieve that info. In the other cases like 'ice', 'kettle', etc. it may help to look at the Ofo cognate to see if there was an initial syllable. The fact that Dakotan has initial syll accent strongly suggests an earlier initial syllable or a long vowel (or both), neither of which is recoverable internally in Dakotan as far as we know. [?r} is attested as a source of *R in a few instances in Mandan where no other language preserves traces of a cluster. But not even MA has a cluster in some instances. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E To: 'siouan at lists.colorado.edu ' Sent: 6/24/2003 2:33 AM Subject: RE: epenthetic glide. On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I think it is Proto-Siouan *y that becomes ch in Dakotan, zh in Dhegiha, > etc. Proto-Siouan *r becomes Dakotan y~l~n. True, although, it might be more precise to say that *r becomes Dakotan y and Dhegiha dh (with special developments in some dialects, i.e., d in Quapaw and y in Kaw). It's *R that becomes Dakotan l ~ d ~ n and Dhegiha n (OP), t ~ c (merger with *t) (Os), and so on. But *r develops as *R in certain clusters, i.e., s^r in Dakotan and Dhegiha and *pr (or *wr or *br) in Dakotan, but not Dhegiha (except in nouns). Dakotan, of course, loses s^ in *s^R < *s^r in the second persons of *r-stems, and OP does between the 1880s and today. So, you find in 'to go': PMV La OP Os *p-re ble bdhe bre (bdhe, but with dh like an r in context) *s^-re le (s^)ne sce *re ye dhe dhe And you can compare these with *pre ble ne ce 'lake' *Rez^e lez^e nez^e cez^e 'urine' The observation that *R behaves like *r in some clusters is presumably what led Kaufman to reconstruct *?r for the *R correspondence, where ? (an apostrophe - glottal stop) is something like the old Bloomfield theta in Algonquian, as is R, really. The *R correspondence was first noticed by Dorsey, but I think thereafter neglected until Kaufman. I first noticed it in Dorsey's Comparative Phonology, in spite of having earlier seen Kaufman's *?r, and originally thought it might be a development of an allophone of *t (matched by *W for *p). > Epenthesis at different times has yielded different results. Older > epentheses seem to yield reflexes of *r while new ones yield reflexes > [y] and [w] both. Also, we need to remember that in Dakotan, the *r > that is inserted after possessive i- shows y-like reflexes. We > explain a number of strange Dakotan ch's like 'ice' in this manner as > I recall. I'm in Bloomington and don't have my notes with me though. > But I think 'kettle' is another. These are the result of *ir > sequences as I recall though. These are not the sets I was thinking of. Here we have La OP 'ice' c^hagha nughe 'pot' ch^egha neghe Here Dakotan is the odd man out, with c^h < *y in sets where others like OP show *R (or *wr, cf. Cr bilaxa and buluxa). The 'ice' set in particular tends to accumulate nasal vowel variants instead of *o. I've sometimes wondered if Teton legha 'glittering; might not be a better match for the 'pot' set. The Dakotan forms simply look like they don't belong, but you have to wonder. The sets I was thinking of were like: 'heart' c^haNte naNde I was arguing that these derived from original forms like *i-yaNt- '(one's) heart', which in PMV dialects underlying Dhegiha was interpreted as **i-y-aNte and underwent rhotacism to *i-r-aNte. Subsequently, with widespread loss of inalienable inflection of body parts, some PMV dialects had *yaNt-e, while others had *raNt-e. We can suspect that the *-e is separable here, because some dialects evidently had *yaNt-ka or *raNt-ka (cf. Winnebago naNaNc^ge). Forms like 'ice' and 'pot' could be handled similarly, assuming inalienable senses like '(one's) pot' or '(it's) congealed skin' (or water), but the hitch here is that these forms do not consistently show nasal vowels, so there is nothing to explain OP n, for example. And, in fact, the 'heart' forms have reflexes of *r/ _VN, while 'ice' and 'pot have reflexes of *R/ _V(oral). They just look similar in OP. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jun 24 17:08:53 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:08:53 -0500 Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Sent: 6/23/2003 4:49 AM Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: (Basic stem) > Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. (Suus stem) > Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem) Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem). OP *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative stem. AND the reconstructed form for the OM dative, though, so ultimately we have to deal with the -g- as part of the problem. It's "there"; you just can't see it. :-) I defer to most of John's paradigmatic analyses/reconstructions, as he's done quite a lot of this for a variety of meetings. I have comments on the *r/*R distinction in the paper I did on the comparative method for the handbook of Hist. Ling. Basically, it's one of those "you can nearly get rid of it" cases familiar from Indo-European. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 17:46:41 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:46:41 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > This one is slightly more regular, but with variation from speaker > to speaker. I usually hear wowate, woyate, wote, wo'uNyutapi, but > Buechel's grammar gives wawate, wayate, wote, wauNyutapi (with wauNtapi in > parentheses -- I assume the absence of the glottal stop in the Buechel > citations won't puzzle anyone; he simply didn't write it between vowels). > There are a number of other words that indicate an old rule converting ayu > to o, which explains the third person form, but the others are clearly > re-analyzed from that or re-derived from the transitive forms. OK, I was wondering where o in wote came from. I was trying to decide if wote involved the o-locative or somehting. But if wo- < wayu-, that suggests that wo- occurs potentially with all yu-instrumental verbs, doesn't it? I was wondering if there was something special about this verb, like maybe an undelrying stem *utA. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 18:13:36 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:36 -0600 Subject: Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > (Basic stem) > Lak. kagha would = Omaha gaghe > (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists. > (Suus stem) > Lak. kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem) > > Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem). OP > *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative > stem. > > AND the reconstructed form for the OM dative, though, so ultimately we have > to deal with the -g- as part of the problem. It's "there"; you just can't > see it. :-) I certainly agree with that - I just thought we were wondering about surface forms. Incidentally, this is the stem where "Southern Dhegiha" (using that term quite informally at this point) has as the dative stem khighe or ks^ighe, as this comes out in Osage and, I think, Kaw, the Quapaw version being unknown. That stem is then inflected regularly. > I have comments on the *r/*R distinction in the paper I did on the > comparative method for the handbook of Hist. Ling. Basically, it's one of > those "you can nearly get rid of it" cases familiar from Indo-European. You can come close to getting rid of it in the *R/t direction, too. That "you can nearly get rid of it" characterization applies widely to various Siouan language phonemes, for that matter. The reasons I like to point out the cases where *r merges with *R in clusters are (1) it must tell us something about the phonetics of *R, though I'm not sure just what. Maybe *r is trilled, but *R is tapped? Also, (2) it seems to be overlooking something to carry the same set of reflexes along in (some) *Cr clusters and the *R sets without saying something about it. Finally, (3) it looks to me, when this behavior of *Cr is arranged tabularly, as if there is a sort of cline of increased *r > *R behavior across the dialects in Mississippi Valley. JEK From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jun 24 18:33:10 2003 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:33:10 -0600 Subject: epenthetic glide. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There are other instances of -ayu- > o, probably with other yu- instrumental verbs, as you suggest -- I can't check for them right now, however. The rule does seem to be an old one; newer forms have wayu without any alteration. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > This one is slightly more regular, but with variation from speaker > > to speaker. I usually hear wowate, woyate, wote, wo'uNyutapi, but > > Buechel's grammar gives wawate, wayate, wote, wauNyutapi (with wauNtapi in > > parentheses -- I assume the absence of the glottal stop in the Buechel > > citations won't puzzle anyone; he simply didn't write it between vowels). > > There are a number of other words that indicate an old rule converting ayu > > to o, which explains the third person form, but the others are clearly > > re-analyzed from that or re-derived from the transitive forms. > > OK, I was wondering where o in wote came from. I was trying to decide if > wote involved the o-locative or somehting. But if wo- < wayu-, that > suggests that wo- occurs potentially with all yu-instrumental verbs, > doesn't it? I was wondering if there was something special about this > verb, like maybe an undelrying stem *utA. > > JEK > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jun 24 18:51:05 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:51:05 -0600 Subject: 'ice' and 'pot' (RE: epenthetic glide.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > In the other cases like 'ice', 'kettle', etc. it may help to look at > the Ofo cognate to see if there was an initial syllable. For 'ice' the only SE cognate is Tutelo noNxi. For 'pot' (under 'kettle') Biloxi and Tutelo have various longer forms in initial yes- and the CSD offers PSE *yes-. The Dhegiha forms are PDh *Ree'ghe OP ne'ghe, Kaw c^ee'ghe, Os ce'ghe. For Winnebago-Chiwere PWC *Ree'xe, IO de'xe, Wi dee'x. Presumably all these vowels should have been heard long, though the sources don't always support that. Dakotan has c^hegha, of course, and Mandan we'rex(e) (without or without the e-absolute marker). CH is PCH *wira'xa, Cr bila'xa, Hi wira'xa. The CSD offers *yeSE as a reconstruction, where S indicates fricative symbolism grades, and E signifies that the final vowel is the e ~ a set of disputed nature. If PS were actually *wVyeS-, maybe *wiyes-, that might explain a lot. We don't know alot about PMV *py (*wy) < PS *wVy-, but there is this. The inflection of *DEM=...ye 'to think' (Da epc^a 'I think', a "defective" stem in traditional temrinology - with only this first person; OP ebdhe(gaN)) shows that Dakota py for *wy and Dhegiha has *bdh. A few noun sets with *py and *ky show that Dakota tends to lose initial p in pc^, so PrePDa *wyegha might well come out pc^hegha ~ c^hegha. Dhegiha has bdh for *pr in verb inflection and verb stems, but *R in nouns in initial position, as in ne 'lake' vs. Da (Te) ble. If Dh treats *py as *pr in all contexts, then PrePDH *wyeghe would come out *Reghe. Since WC works like Dh wrt *wr (and, I think also *wy), it has *Rexe. CH has forms like PCH *wiraxa, where it looks like x has lowered preceding e. Maybe SE lacks wi- before *y? This doesn't help with Dhegiha wi- < *w-yi A1-P2 in transitive verbs. It looks like those should have *Ri-, which they don't. This argument is not entirely new, as the Bob's discussions show. I think this might be one of those cases where the editors didn't quite get their ideas into the reconstruction. Anyway, this is certainly a case where it pays to notice that *R reflexes are sometimes fairly late developments of *r (or *y) in clusters. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jun 25 15:40:23 2003 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:40:23 -0600 Subject: Clarification *wy- and 'think' (Re: 'ice' and 'pot') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > ... We don't know a lot about PMV *py (*wy) < PS *wVy-, but there is > this. The inflection of *DEM=...ye 'to think' (Da epc^a 'I think', a > "defective" stem in traditional temrinology - with only this first > person; OP ebdhe(gaN)) shows that Dakota py for *wy and Dhegiha has > *bdh. A few noun sets with *py and *ky show that Dakota tends to lose > initial p in pc^, so PrePDa *wyegha might well come out pc^hegha ~ > c^hegha. Between a typo concerning Dakotan py (actually pc^ ~ c^h) for *wy (*py, *by, all non-contrasting, at most conceptual variants) and lack of detail, I don't think this was very clear. What I was trying to say is that, while Siouan has abundant evidence of *wr (*pr, *br), we have only limited evidence for *wy. However, there is a verb, something like *DEM=...ye, e.g., *e=...ye, 'to think' (of a quotation), that shows that there was such a cluster. In Dhegiha this behaves like an *r-stem, with the first person ebdhe- for the stem edhe-, for example, in OP. Actually, in OP this verb has to be followed by egaN 'like that', so the attested forms are ebdh=e'gaN, edh=e'gaN. I take egaN here to be acting like an adverbial modifier "sort of" so that historically the construction is "I sorta think that ..." and so on. In Dakotan this stem is defective, i.e., existing only in some of the potential forms, in particular, only in the first person, which is epc^a. Since c^h is normally a refex of *y, this is probably from *e-p-yA, i.e., it is a *y-stem instead of an *r-stem. So, although Dhegiha does usually distinguish *y and *r, it doesn't do so in this case. In fact, since the third person is not expected *e-z^e < *e-ye then we'd have to call the third person irregular and analogical (first person ebdhe < *epye => third person edhe), except that we could probably also argue that this is a case of intervocalic *-y- treated as epenthetic and so developing as *-r-. But as only some intervocalic *-y- develop in that way, we can see that a certain amount of analogy or abstraction of some sort has to be involved here, one way or another. About the best we can do here is to point out that *y in *e=ye is always intervocalic, because of the proclitic demonstrative, while in other cases it is either always initial, or at least occasionally initial. In any event, alerted by the case of 'think', we can discover a few other cases of *wy (*py, *by), one of which is apparently 'mosquito', which was something like *pyaphuNka, leading to Dakotan c^haphuN'ka, but OP na'haNga. Here Dakotan has c^h rather than pc^. We are aided in understanding *py by the behavior of *ky, e.g., *kye'praN 'ten' as in Dakotan (wi)kc^e'mna vs. OP gdhe'baN (earlier gdhebdhaN), or *kye'taN 'hawk' as in Dakotan c^hetaN' vs. OP gdhe'daN. Here *ky > kc^ ~ c^h in Dakotan, but gdh in OP. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jun 27 16:17:55 2003 From: rankin at ku.edu (rankin) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:17:55 -0500 Subject: More "ablaut". Message-ID: > That would certainly be the gold standard. I wonder > though if you would be willing to bend the *same verb* > rule just a little bit here. Well, evidence always accumulates slowly, and, naturally the truly "minimal" distinctions emerge more slowly than near-minimal ones sometimes. With "ablaut" affecting every -e stem verb though, I'd expect to find massive cases of such minimal meaning distinctions if -e/-a really has any morphemic status at all. Not only have I not found a lot -- I haven't found any at all. But I'm not working with Omaha, so I defer to those of you who are. Looking at the problem as a comparatist, I don't see much evidence within Dhegiha. Winnebago could be different in detail, but, since it's Mississippi Valley Siouan, not different in principle. I can't explain the use of -a with -ire since that particular suffix (or suffixeS) doesn't have obvious reflexes in Dhegiha or Dakotan. The Hochunkers among us will have to deal with that over time. There are a lot of post-verbal enclitics (or suffixes) in Dakotan that interact with "ablaut". Since most of them lack cognates in other MVS groups, I've assumed, maybe wrongly, that they all came into use in Dakotan after -a had spread analogically in the Dakotan subgroup. It's the forms with the cognates across MVS that tell the tale; the others aren't talking to me right now. And WI -ire is one of them. :-) Bob (back in Kansas now).