Dhegiha Plurals & the microfilms.

[Rory M Larson]

>> 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