Borrowed Names in Omaha-Ponca

[Kathleen Shea]

I haven't kept up with the latest Siouan list postings, but I'll reply to
Rory's question.  I have /ne(e)'ghe/ 'bladder, bucket,' with /n/.  In my
first recording, I wrote [ne?ghe] (with a rising-falling contour pitch over
the first vowel, which would indicate a long vowel) 'bladder' and [ne'ghe]
'bucket.'  However, after asking again later, I was told that the two words
have the same pronunciation.  I assume that animal bladders were probably
used as buckets, to haul liquids, at one time, so this is probably one word.
I tend to think the stressed vowel is short in this case.

We've commented before on the interchangeability of /dh/ and /n/ in some
Omaha-Ponca words, and I think that it must happen fairly often.  I've
noticed it in /gasaN'dhiN/ 'tomorrow,' /is^tiN'nikhe/ 'trickster, monkey,'
and some others, where Ponca will have one form of the word and Omaha the
other.  (I'm giving the Ponca pronunciation, as far as I know, here.)

Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koontz John E" <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Borrowed Names in Omaha-Ponca


> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Rory M Larson wrote:
> > The Dorsey dictionary [the NAA ms.] distinguishes these forms as
> > dialectal within OP: dhe'(e)ghe is Ponka, and ne'(e)ghe is Omaha.
>
> It should be possible to determine if the distribution in Dorsey matches
> the sources of his examples.  I'll try to do that.
>
> > Our Omaha speakers use nE'ghe.  (I'm not sure about length, but they
> > were pretty firm in correcting me when I was trying to say ne'ghe; the
> > first vowel is distinct from the standard /e/, and I hear it as /E/ as
> > in 'neck'.  Possibly the /e/ vs. /E/ distinction is equivalent to short
> > vs. long /e/ though.)
>
> It might be a contextual effect of gh.  Uvular and back velar fricatives
> tend to lower adjacent vowels.
>
> > Stabler & Swetland are specifically Omaha, not OP like Dorsey, so they
> > should only have the ne'(e)ghe form.  Kathleen, how is it in Ponka?
>
> Yes, but I should hasten to indicate that I really didn't mean this to be
> taken as a defect in any sense.  UmonNhoN Iye of Elizabeth Stabler is
> clearly not comprehensive, and I don't think the editors - Mark and Mrs.
> Stabler - ever claimed that.  All I meant was the form wasn't attested
> there.
>
>