From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Feb 1 02:20:23 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:20:23 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Bob's comments about prairie and plains makes me think of something I saw > recently in a French trader's itinerary, where he calls the the wet > prairie of the Kankakee a "plaine" (actually spelled "plenne") and then in > parentheses, to explain what he means, he says "pays bas," which means > "lowland". From this account it appears that in the West, Frenchmen were > using "plains" to mean something slightly different from what is typically > taken as the meaning of the word. The original meaning of 'plain' in English was similar, and its sense was extended when English-speakers encountered the Plains. The Dict. of Amer. English defines the earlier sense (from 1608 in N. Amer.) as "a comparatively small, well-defined tract of level land free or nearly free from trees and readily cultivable" and the later sense (from 1755, born in N. Amer.) as "an extensive region of level or rolling treeless country; prairie." William Clark uses it explicitly for what we now call a flood-plain (a. below), and also in the Great Plains sense (d. or e. below). DAE's discussion of PRAIRIE is more detailed: 1. A level or rolling area of land, destitute of trees and usually covered with grass. {a1682, of a meadow in France} This word has been applied to areas of different types in different parts of the country, giving rise to the following specific senses: a. A meadow, esp. one alongside a river; a relatively small area of low-lying grassland. (See also bottom, swamp, wet prairie.) b. A grass-covered opening in a forest; a savannah. (See alo high, ridge, upland prairie.) c. A level open area about a town, house, etc. d. A broad expanse of level or rolling land in the Indiana, Illinois, and Mississippi Valley country, covered by coarse grass. (See also grand, open prairie.) e. An extensive plateau to the west of the Mississippi. In pl., frequently referring to the entire area between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. (See also great, hog-wallow, open, rolling, western prairie.) My Lewis-and-Clark enry for PLAIN: PLAIN A relatively level, usually grass-covered, mostly treeless tract of land, nearly synonymous with PRAIRIE in the journals. (Clark translates the French Prairie du Chien as the Dog Plains [2.458] and virtually equates 'plain' and 'prairie' in his entries below.) A plain can be large or small, low land or high. As with prairie, the captains’ use of the word expanded, after they reached the Mississippi, to include not only the grassy, cultivable BOTTOM lands along the rivers--now called flood plains--but also the seemingly limitless higher and drier grasslands we call the (Great) Plains. the plains and woodlands are here [near St. Louis] indiscriminately interspersed [20 May 04 ML 2.240] the plain on which it [St. Charles, Missouri] stands is narrow [20 May 04 ML 2.241] on the L[arboard]. S[ide]. is a butifull Bottom Prarie whuch will Contain about 2000 acres [10 Jul 04 WC 2.364] on the L. S. is a butifull bottom Plain of about 2000 acres [10 Jul 04 WC 2.365] Came Suddenly into an open and bound less Prarie, I Say bound less because I could not See the extent of the plain in any Derection..this Prarie was Covered with grass about 18 Inches or 2 feat high [19 Jul 04 WC 2.394] Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 1 08:50:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:50:39 -0700 Subject: udhaN' 'to hold' (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I didn't mention this yesterday because I thought it was a different > word/interpretation from the 'island' meaning. Now I wonder though: > could an island be something 'held' by surrounding water? If we can have > a land-locked lake in English, how about a (water)-held land in Dhegiha? I'm now wondering if it's possible that udhaN' in this sense 'to hold' is simply a homophone (as far as it's root ins concerned): Os odhiNge, odhaN (OP-ism?); Ks oyiNge; IO unaNge; WI honaN'k 'help carry or walk' There is no trace of simple uthe or uhe. The positional set, recall, is dhaN 'round', the 'vertical, long', he (cf. khe) 'horizontal, flat'. We do find *o-k-POS positional verbs. We have ugdhaN', ugi'gdhaN 'put (own) in' (put robe on, don robe, dress in robe, insert head in buffalo pelvis, put meat in mouth, place severed head on cradle board) ui'gdhaN 'place something in pot for someone' z^e'=gdhaN 'put in curved object to roast or put stone on fire' There are also, for the: ugdhe' 'put in' (of tail in hole in ice, arrow point in shaft, arrow in quiver) (k + the => gdhe) There doesn't seem to be an ukhe per se. Possibly related to (k)he, and referring to lying crosswise: u?aNhe 'put in' (of plume in hair, boat in water, meat in mouth, meat in bowl, turtle in hot water, body in sling, baby on craddle board in wrappings, place body of coyote in wagon, corn in crib) u?aN(he?) 'put wood on fire' Finally, non-positional, and referring to inserting or placing in an enclosed area: uz^i 'put in bag, load musket, load pipe, put corn in soup, put people in darkness, body in bag, put horse in corral, load boat with goods, put hay in wagon, ' ugi'z^i 'put one's own in, put in one's own' From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Feb 1 13:16:37 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:16:37 +0100 Subject: prairie - plains Message-ID: That's what I found at Douglas Harper's prairie - 17c., from Fr. prairie, from O.Fr. praerie, from V.L. *prataria,from L. pratum "meadow," originally "a hollow." The word existed in M.E. as prayere, but was lost and reborrowed to describe the American plains. Interestingly, the original semantics doesn't seem to be 'grass' but 'hollow (spot)', maybe referring to 'wet/watery land' -> 'vegatation/grass' plain - 13c., from O.Fr. plain, from L. planus "flat, even, level," from PIE*pla- "flat." Sense of "smooth" is earliest in Eng., meanings of "simple, sincere, ordinary" are 14c. Of appearance, as a euphemism for "ill-favored, ugly" it dates from 1749. Plains of the American Midwest first so called 1684. L. planum was used for "level ground" but much more common was campus. Cf. also Italian: 'piano', Spanish: 'llano' (also used in the southern U.S.) As for Dakota, Buechel S.J. has: blabla'ta - [B.: an upland plain] [R.B.: rolling prairie, hills and levels] fr. blayA - > bla'ye [R.B.:= a plain]| [R.B.:= level] iyo'blaye - [B.: a plain extending from, as from a hill] izo' - [B.: an upland plain that is a peninsula] makxo'blaye - [B.: a plain] obla'ye - [B.: a level place, a plaint a valley]R.B.: a plain, a level place] oka'blaye - [B.: a level place, a plain], cf. blaska'/flat akhi'c^ipa - [B.: a flat tableland that lies higher than a creek] I wonder why the French term 'prairie' wasn't adopted, since the Natives' relationship with the early French immigrants were comparably close (maybe due to their intimate contacts as e.g. trappers, with intermarriages etc. - cf. Native last names like Peltier, Deloria <- Des Lauriers). Yet, one can imagine that the land they lived on and their very culture was based on meant too much to them to refer to it by a foreign term. Alfred http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Feb 1 15:25:09 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:25:09 -0600 Subject: prairie - plains In-Reply-To: <401CFC35.8040801@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred W. Tüting wrote: > I wonder why the French term 'prairie' wasn't adopted, since the > Natives' relationship with the early French immigrants were comparably > close (maybe due to their intimate contacts as e.g. trappers, with > intermarriages etc. - cf. Native last names like Peltier, Deloria <- Des > Lauriers). La Prairie is an Ojibway surname, at least in northern Minnesota. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 1 22:50:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:50:19 -0700 Subject: prairie - plains In-Reply-To: <401CFC35.8040801@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: ... > As for Dakota, Buechel S.J. has: > fr. blayA - > bla'ye [R.B.:= a plain]| [R.B.:= level] > iyo'blaye - [B.: a plain extending from, as from a hill] > izo' - [B.: an upland plain that is a peninsula] > makxo'blaye - [B.: a plain] > obla'ye - [B.: a level place, a plaint a valley]R.B.: a plain, a level > place] > oka'blaye - [B.: a level place, a plain], cf. blaska'/flat ... > I wonder why the French term 'prairie' wasn't adopted, since the > Natives' relationship with the early French immigrants were comparably > close (maybe due to their intimate contacts as e.g. trappers, with > intermarriages etc. - cf. Native last names like Peltier, Deloria <- Des > Lauriers). Yet, one can imagine that the land they lived on and their > very culture was based on meant too much to them to refer to it by a > foreign term. It doesn't seem likely to be a candidate for borrowing, except in names, but I was kidding Bob Rankin that Kaw for prairie would be bleye (< [preiri]). I suppose that bleya would be the form of the same joke in Dakota. However, the *pra 'flat' element, usually with extensions, is about as well distributed in Siouan as *pla is in IE. In regard to: > prairie - 17c., from Fr. prairie, from O.Fr. praerie, from V.L. > *prataria,from L. pratum "meadow," originally "a hollow." ... > Interestingly, the original semantics doesn't seem to be 'grass' but > 'hollow (spot)', maybe referring to 'wet/watery land' -> > 'vegatation/grass' There is a similar concatenation of ideas in Omaha-Ponca with respect to hollows and lowlands around streams: JOD 90:142.5 S^i e'd=ua'thaN wiN maNa' wathi's^ka uxdhu'xa=xti idhe'=dhe=xti Again next a bank creek hollow very it sends very dhi'giaghe= tta=i=the they make for you will surely In the next challenge they will probably face you with a creek bank that falls off steeply. Which continues, after some deails of invoking aid: JOD 90:143.3/2 is^ta hni'p?iNze=daN uxdhu'xa=khe a'dhagaz^ade=tte e'dhe eyes you shut during hollow the you will stride over indeed which shows that the hollow (with khe for flat, horizontally extended things) refers not to a hollowing of one bank, but to the whole floodplain or ravine. JOD 90:249.7 Ha'ghige=ama tti'xiNde uxdhu'xa ugdhiN'=tta=akha ha Haghige gorge hollow he will sit in DECL Haghige will sit in a deep gorge. (Interesting that the subject article is ama, while the future auxiliary is akha.) Continuing: JOD 90:249.8 Uxghu'xa ugdhiN'= de wani'tta gat?e= ma Hollow sitting in a beasts killed by falling the gaN wa'dhathe gdhiN=tta=akha. so he eats them he will sit (Unexpectedly) sitting in the hollow, he will eat the animals that are killed by falling into it. In short, he's using a ravine, or creek-hollowed area, as a deadfall. However, a "hollow" is not a broad plain: JOD 90:419.16/17 E'gidhe wathi's^ka=akha ttaNga'=dheha=i. Uxdhu'xa=baz^i. At length creek the spread out it was not hollow Xa'de ha. Dhi'xdhe s^ku'be basaN agdha=i= khe. Grass DECL canes deep pushing among they went home EVID Finally, the floodplains opened out. It was no longer a ravine. There was grass. They had headed homeward through thick canes. Another word that Dorsey renders 'hollow' is in a placename: 90:454.13 HaNdhi' tti uspe'=khe Henry House Hollow (I suspect Henry here is really Henri.) This seems to be a sort of swale, perhaps abrupt. Uspe'= daN=s^te e'gihe i=dhe' a sunken place perhaps headlong he has gone 90:436.17 Wathi's^ka=khe uspe' aNgu'gdhiN=i Creek the a sunken place we sat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 2 06:01:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:01:29 -0700 Subject: udhaN' 'to hold' (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I'm now wondering if it's possible that udhaN' in this sense 'to hold' is > simply a homophone (as far as it's root ins concerned): Os odhiNge, odhaN > (OP-ism?); Ks oyiNge; IO unaNge; Wi honaN'k 'help carry or walk'. Clarifying my remark above, I didn't find a Quapaw or Dakotan form. In the former case this probably reflects the shortage of information on Quapaw. The Winnebago form here is a little problematic, due to the gloss. The iN vowels are a bit awkward in Osage and Kaw, but the glossing is straightforward and the rest of the match seems perfect. OP truncates another similar -kE form, 'to talk', cf. OP udha' 'to tell', Os odha'ke. I don't know of any other examples off-hand, so it's a bit early to talk about a rule. I'm a little bothered by the mechanics of 'in' + 'round shaped' => 'take hold of', though it's not really so unreasonable. What bothers me is not so much the semantics, in fact, as two other factors. First, the lack of comparable forms for the other shapes (no *othe, *o(k)he). Second, u < o* doesn't usually act as a transitivizer, though it can redirect transitivity. So, anyway, I doubt this form is tightly linked with dhaN in OP, though it may well trace to PS *raNk-e 'sit'. I looked for a Dakotan member of this possible set, but the best I could come up with was naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', but, as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a morpheme for 'two'. Perhaps it is 'clasping on' a sort of two-sided operation. It does seem to be a sort of relict, a bound-form-only participle in both shape and distribution. Perhaps some of the Dakota specialists know more about anuNk or things like it? I didn't see anything plausible in Mandan but raNke 'sit', so I didn't look further. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 2 06:50:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:50:51 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > khe ihe=...dhe > > (The i here is probably not a locative, however.) > > I'm surprised. It certainly "feels" like one to me. > Is there evidence from other languages against the > i- dative interpretation? There are two sorts of evidence against i as a locative - instrumenal, dative or otherwise - though I admit that I initially took this as a locative myself, and we are lacking evidence of the most desirable sort - a case of, say, A12 or P1 aN coming up against the i and not doing the standard aNdhaN thing that characterizes the locative i. The first kind of evidence is internal (and applies throughout Dhegiha, as far as I know). It happens that idhaN, ithe, and ihe occur frequently in causatives (form=...dhe) in the sense 'put and object of such and such a shape down' or 'put an object positioned in such and such a configuration'. However, they also occur alone and with causatives in the sense 'be positioned; begin; do suddenly; do suddenly and repeatedly', and in all these situations they alternate with thi-forms like thidhaN, thithe, or thihe. And we also see some cases with hi initial in such sequences. So it appears that i alternates with thi and hi, which are clearly motion verbs ('to arrive here' and 'to arrive there'). Thus, it seems likely that it is a motion verb itself, and, of course, there is i 'to come'. However, dhe 'to go' never occurs in this context, so there are some oddities to the slot. The second kind of evidence is comparative. In Dakotan equivalents of the i forms you generaly see uN, e.g., uNgnahela 'suddenly', where I think the initial uNgna matches igdhaN. I am not positive of this, and the OP i matches i across Dhegiha and in IO, all places where u might be expected, if i is from *u. In general, however, I think the first set of evidence is fairly conclusive. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 2 18:10:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:10:15 -0600 Subject: udhaN' 'to hold' Message-ID: > I'm now wondering if it's possible that udhaN' in this sense 'to hold' > is simply a homophone (as far as it's root ins concerned): Os > odhiNge, odhaN (OP-ism?); Ks oyiNge; IO unaNge; Wi honaN'k 'help carry > or walk'. I haven't been following the udhon discussion closely, so I apologize if this is either obvious or repetitious. The alternation/variation of the vowels aN/iN in the same root is characteristic ONLY of positionals as far as I've been able to determine. The 'sitting' root *raN-(ke) has doublets in *riN-(ke) in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. In conjugating 'be sitting' Dakotan has both maNke/naNke and miNke/niNke in the 1st and 2nd sg. The 'standing' root participates only to a much lesser degree, but there is a hiiN- root in some languages in addition to, or replacing, the haN- root. > Clarifying my remark above, I didn't find a Quapaw or Dakotan form. In the former case this probably reflects the shortage of information on Quapaw. The Winnebago form here is a little problematic, due to the gloss. Quapaw /onaN'/ 'grasp, hold, seize'. ObnaN, ottaN in 1st/2nd persons. Bob From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Feb 2 19:32:32 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:32:32 +0100 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: >I looked for a Dakotan member of this possible set, but the best I could come up with was naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', but, as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a morpheme for 'two'. << I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k where the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], the initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] 'Weißkopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 2 20:02:35 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:02:35 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: In Kansa and Osage the initial V in these forms is never /u/ (U-umlaut), so the motion verb would presumably not be (h)u 'come', but one of the others. BOB > There are two sorts of evidence against i as a locative - instrumenal, dative or otherwise - though I admit that I initially took this as a locative myself, and we are lacking evidence of the most desirable sort - a case of, say, A12 or P1 aN coming up against the i and not doing the standard aNdhaN thing that characterizes the locative i. > The first kind of evidence is internal (and applies throughout Dhegiha, as far as I know). It happens that idhaN, ithe, and ihe occur frequently in causatives (form=...dhe) in the sense 'put and object of such and such a shape down' or 'put an object positioned in such and such a configuration'. However, they also occur alone and with causatives in the sense 'be positioned; begin; do suddenly; do suddenly and repeatedly', and in all these situations they alternate with thi-forms like thidhaN, thithe, or thihe. And we also see some cases with hi initial in such sequences. So it appears that i alternates with thi and hi, which are clearly motion verbs ('to arrive here' and 'to arrive there'). Thus, it seems likely that it is a motion verb itself, and, of course, there is i 'to come'. However, dhe 'to go' never occurs in this context, so there are some oddities to the slot. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Feb 2 20:03:18 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:03:18 -0800 Subject: anuNg - nupa In-Reply-To: <401EA5D0.4040504@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k >where the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], >the initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] >'Wei�kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, but I could be wrong. My Lakota speaker, on at least two occasions, etymologized anuNk[h?]asaN 'bald eagle' as 'white on both ends/sides', which is semantically very appropriate, of course. I'm pretty sure that I have heard the form anuNk[h?]a-taN 'from both sides' sometime. -taN means 'from', and my guess is that anuNk[h?]a- is the full form of the lexical root that appears in truncated form in the name for Deloria's mythical character AnuNk-Ite 'Double FAce' and in other compounds. Thus: no need to analyze -[h?]a, at least for now, unless someone else comes up with compelling reasons for treating -[?]a as an independent element. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Feb 2 20:47:44 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:47:44 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: > In general, however, I think the first set of evidence is fairly > conclusive. I agree, and would count myself newly convinced. I remember about a year ago there was a discussion about [verb of motion]+[another verb] combinations, like "come help" or "go get drunk" in English. I've forgotten the jargon for this. It almost looks like we might have had that sort of situation using positionals for the second verb. Then the result of that becomes a descriptor of a condition, which can thus be fed as the lexical concept into a causative in these cases. Thoughts? Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for owner-siouan at lists.c 'prairie'?) olorado.edu 02/02/2004 12:50 AM Please respond to siouan > > khe ihe=...dhe > > (The i here is probably not a locative, however.) > > I'm surprised. It certainly "feels" like one to me. > Is there evidence from other languages against the > i- dative interpretation? There are two sorts of evidence against i as a locative - instrumenal, dative or otherwise - though I admit that I initially took this as a locative myself, and we are lacking evidence of the most desirable sort - a case of, say, A12 or P1 aN coming up against the i and not doing the standard aNdhaN thing that characterizes the locative i. The first kind of evidence is internal (and applies throughout Dhegiha, as far as I know). It happens that idhaN, ithe, and ihe occur frequently in causatives (form=...dhe) in the sense 'put and object of such and such a shape down' or 'put an object positioned in such and such a configuration'. However, they also occur alone and with causatives in the sense 'be positioned; begin; do suddenly; do suddenly and repeatedly', and in all these situations they alternate with thi-forms like thidhaN, thithe, or thihe. And we also see some cases with hi initial in such sequences. So it appears that i alternates with thi and hi, which are clearly motion verbs ('to arrive here' and 'to arrive there'). Thus, it seems likely that it is a motion verb itself, and, of course, there is i 'to come'. However, dhe 'to go' never occurs in this context, so there are some oddities to the slot. The second kind of evidence is comparative. In Dakotan equivalents of the i forms you generaly see uN, e.g., uNgnahela 'suddenly', where I think the initial uNgna matches igdhaN. I am not positive of this, and the OP i matches i across Dhegiha and in IO, all places where u might be expected, if i is from *u. In general, however, I think the first set of evidence is fairly conclusive. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Feb 2 21:20:45 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:20:45 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: Bob wrote: > In Kansa and Osage the initial V in these forms is never /u/ (U-umlaut), > so the motion verb would presumably not be (h)u 'come', but one of the > others. BOB Oops! Maybe I should have waited for more commentary before completely conceding! As far as I know, there are just four basic verbs of motion available: MVS *re, OP dhe, 'go' *u, i, 'come' *i, (?) hi, 'get there' *thi, thi, 'get here' (I may have this list gurbled up a bit. The MVS for the second and third now seem doubtful.) So what other options do we have, if not the 'come' form? Rory From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Feb 2 21:23:48 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:23:48 +0100 Subject: anunk - nupa Message-ID: >I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, but I could be wrong. [...]<< I didn't regard it as an aspiration here either, but thought of [anuN'k-h^a-saN], raising the problem of what is meant by [h^a']. The (common?) translation by "white on both ends/sides" doesn't seem to be too convincing given that the bird's head and neck being white on top and all around (and not only "on both sides/ends"). Can it be that _ha_ [h^a'] is some - maybe abbreviated - form I'm too awkward to retrieve in dictionaries? Alfred From napshawin at msn.com Mon Feb 2 21:54:52 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:54:52 -0600 Subject: anunk - nupa Message-ID: FOR WHAT ITS WORTH ANUKXA means 'at each end' on each side think of all the situations that can have two opposite ends san means whitish, like in elders hair when it finally all gets that certain color hope this helps, Violet >From: "Alfred W. T�ting" >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: anunk - nupa >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:23:48 +0100 > > >I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is >aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, >but I could be wrong. [...]<< > >I didn't regard it as an aspiration here either, but thought of >[anuN'k-h^a-saN], raising the problem of what is meant by [h^a']. >The (common?) translation by "white on both ends/sides" doesn't seem to be >too convincing given that the bird's head and neck being white on top and >all around (and not only "on both sides/ends"). Can it be that _ha_ [h^a'] >is some - maybe abbreviated - form I'm too awkward to retrieve in >dictionaries? > >Alfred > _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From napshawin at msn.com Mon Feb 2 22:01:10 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:01:10 -0600 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: WHILE IT DOESN'T EXPLICTLY SAY THE WORD FOR TWO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD, ANUNKXA, on both sides, on each side etc, like at the top and bottom, opposing sides, only two sides, head-tail, right-left, above-below, on top-on bottom, so namp anunkxa yuza hypothetically, i went to shake the hand (one) of a grieving person, and felt really sorry when i saw him/her, i would take his/her hand in both of mine and slightly rub in to show my sympathy... Violet naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', but, >as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a morpheme for 'two'. << > >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k where >the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], the >initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) > >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] >'Wei�kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? > >Alfred > _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up � fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1 From jfu at centrum.cz Mon Feb 2 22:03:52 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:03:52 -0500 Subject: anunk - nupa In-Reply-To: <401EBFE4.90603@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: > Alfred W. Tütin > I didn't regard it as an aspiration here either, but thought of > [anuN'k-h^a-saN], raising the problem of what is meant by [h^a']. > The (common?) translation by "white on both ends/sides" doesn't seem to > be too convincing given that the bird's head and neck being white on top > and all around (and not only "on both sides/ends"). Can it be that _ha_ > [h^a'] is some - maybe abbreviated - form I'm too awkward to retrieve in > dictionaries? anuNkhasaN anuNkha - 'on both sides' saN - 'whitish' This refers to the fact that the head and the tail of the eagle are white. Jan Ullrich From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 2 23:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:58:37 -0700 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: Posted for David, who is having computer troubles. -----Original Message----- From: David S. Rood [mailto:rood at colorado.edu] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:48 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: anuNg - nupa Regina, Buechel's entries for 'bald eagle' are ambiguous (plain k, no diacritic), but he has an aspiraction mark on anukhataN 'on both sides'. I would be very suspicious of relating this to nupa 'two' because I'm not aware of any p>k changes this unconditionally. I have always assumed that this was the first word in the "Double Face" name, as you said. David -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of REGINA PUSTET Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:03 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: anuNg - nupa >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k >where the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], >the initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] >'Wei_kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, but I could be wrong. My Lakota speaker, on at least two occasions, etymologized anuNk[h?]asaN 'bald eagle' as 'white on both ends/sides', which is semantically very appropriate, of course. I'm pretty sure that I have heard the form anuNk[h?]a-taN 'from both sides' sometime. -taN means 'from', and my guess is that anuNk[h?]a- is the full form of the lexical root that appears in truncated form in the name for Deloria's mythical character AnuNk-Ite 'Double FAce' and in other compounds. Thus: no need to analyze -[h?]a, at least for now, unless someone else comes up with compelling reasons for treating -[?]a as an independent element. Regina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 00:17:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:17:00 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DD4@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > In Kansa and Osage the initial V in these forms is never /u/ (U-umlaut), > so the motion verb would presumably not be (h)u 'come', but one of the > others. BOB Yes, this is an important point, and this is why I pointed out the unexpected correspondences in the rest of Dhegiha (though u > i also in Quapaw, actually) and IO. I'm afraid that point got lost at the bottom of the note: > The second kind of evidence is comparative. In Dakotan equivalents of > the i forms you generaly see uN, e.g., uNgnahela 'suddenly', where I > think the initial uNgna matches igdhaN. I am not positive of this, and > the OP i matches i across Dhegiha and in IO, all places where u might be > expected, if i is from *u. So, in short, if this is a verb of motion, it's an unusual one found only in this context. Or we have to conclude that we have two patterns of this kind of auxiliary: VERB-MOTION-ARRIVAL + POSITIONAL i + POSITIONAL The syntax is a little more complex than this, because either of these patterns can have the positional reduplicated or a causative added. I don't think I've seen a combination of these! The positionals can have *k- prefixed. In any case we have at a minimum the complication of defining VERB-MOTION = thi, hi, i instead of something more expected. Positionals include not just the, dhaN, he, but also dhe 'moving'. So, for example, the Dakota verb hiyaya turns out to be cognate with OP thidhadha. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 00:26:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:26:39 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I remember about a year ago there was a discussion about [verb of > motion]+[another verb] combinations, like "come help" or "go get drunk" > in English. I've forgotten the jargon for this. Serial verb? > It almost looks like we might have had that sort of situation using > positionals for the second verb. Then the result of that becomes a > descriptor of a condition, which can thus be fed as the lexical concept > into a causative in these cases. Thoughts? Well, I see where you going with the decriptor of a condition - though I might have said "manner of performing an action, or a characterization of the results of performing an action." And any of these forms can be causativized. The verbs of placement with i-POSITIONAL-CAUSATIVE are interesting in being independent. Most of these forms, causative or otherwise, remain dependent. But the i-POSITIONAL forms can also occur independently, too, I believe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 01:13:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:13:09 -0700 Subject: Come and Suddenly (RE: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > As far as I know, there are just four basic verbs of > motion available: PS Da > MVS *re, OP dhe, 'go' *rE(h) yA > *u, i, 'come' *(h)u u > *i, (?) hi, 'get there' *hi i > *thi, thi, 'get here' *thi hi Dakota loses initial *h and and then reduces *th to h, so you do end up with one h-form - but a diffferent form from OP, Winnebago, etc. The initial of *(h)u is a bit odd - another anomalous h. Most Dhegiha has hu, but OP has just i < *u. The Dh first and second persons, in OP, too, suggest hu, as you get phu/s^u (or phi/s^i in OP). We could put this down to loss of h in the third person in OP, but there are two other oddities with this stem that support *u. 1) The vertitive is *ku (e.g., OP gi, Os ku), *not* *khu. 2) That Dakota compound hiyu, conservatively inflected hibu/hinu/hiyu, has bu, not phu, in the first person. I'm inclined to think that the stem is *u, but that the first and second person stem, maybe the third person stem, too, became *hu even in PMV by analogy with *hi 'to arrive there'. In short, bu/s^u/u (an oral glottal stop stem) was a bit too odd of a paradigm even for PMV. > So what other options do we have, if not the 'come' form? A mysterious fifth motion verb - a sort of generic covering both coming and going. Or a locative, of course. Or I guess we could opt for irregular raising of *u to i across Dhegiha and IO. I like that last least. You can find these forms in (OP) text by looking for the appropriate shapes (some with a- on the motion stems), or by searching on glosses like start, begin, suddenly, or repeatedly. You also run into them periodically in elicitation, e.g., try 'to push' or maybe 'to shove' or 'to throw'. Think of things that have to be done suddenly to be done well, and make sure the context doesn't suggest a continuative or present. That is, 'I pushed him', not 'I am pushing a grocery cart'. Or, you can find them under the suggested glosses in dictionaries, and, if you look far enough, you find them appended to other verbs in dictionaries of Dhegiha, IO, or Winnebago, generally with no gloss or explanation offered. I haven't seen this latter pattern in Dakota, where they seem to be more or less moribund (or not as productive). I haven't studied texts outside of OP, so I don't know how common textually they are in other languages. In OP they are less common than progressives, but there's maybe one example per page or so, on average. I think you'd want to teach them at about the same point where Russian courses start looking at perfective/imperfective in detail. Second year? Certain forms are more common, e.g., thidhe(dhe) (j^ire(hi) in IO or Wi), dhedhe, idhe, idhaN(dhaN), but if you look in a large set of examples, e.g., a whole dictionary or the OP texts, you find sporadic instances of most of the combinatorial possibilities. If you ponder the semantics of given examples the motion verbs and positional seem to make sense in terms of the path followed by the action, or the shape of the object, etc., but I don't think I would be able to predict forms for a particular verb confidently. It seems that you generally get one particular form with a given main verb, not a variety of forms with different shades of meaning. In effect, verbs have a sort of shape gender in the languages where these forms prevalent. I've never done elicitation on this, so I really don't know if all verbs have a particular "inceptive/instantive/frequentive" auxiliary or not. Maybe some do vary the verb with intent or randomly, and maybe some verbs can't take such auxiliaries. I didn't really notice the whole thing until after my fieldwork, I'm afraid. The same sort of gender like consideration seems to govern whether you get the, khe, or dhaN (or even ge) as an evidential particle with a given verb. By the way, there was a nice khe evidential example in the discussion of prairies, lowlands, and hollows - I think I let it go without comment, figuring folks might get tire of my little obsessions. If desired I can supply some examples of "aorist" auxiliaries in context, though I believe I may have done this already (check the archives). From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 01:13:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:13:06 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: > The syntax is a little more complex than this, because either of these > patterns can have the positional reduplicated or a causative added. I > don't think I've seen a combination of these! The positionals can have > *k- prefixed. That's an interesting point. I've been tempted to do a conference paper on the causative-like K- that occurs with positional verbs. k-raN, k-re, k-?oN-he bear the same relationship to raN, the, (w)uN that 'set, stand, lay' bear to 'sit, stand, lie' in English, i.e., they behave as if they had the causative suffix. The only other verb that behaves like this that I know about is Dakotan kta 'kill' acompared with t?a 'die'. The K- certainly behaves like a causative, but it would be very hard to interpret as one since in languages with this word order have their AUX's after the main verb all the rest of the time. FWIW. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 01:17:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:17:31 -0700 Subject: anuNg - nupa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, CATCHES VIOLET wrote: > WHILE IT DOESN'T EXPLICTLY SAY THE WORD FOR TWO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD, > ANUNKXA, on both sides, on each side etc, like at the top and bottom, > opposing sides, only two sides, head-tail, right-left, above-below, on > top-on bottom, > so namp anunkxa yuza hypothetically, i went to shake the hand (one) of a > grieving person, and felt really sorry when i saw him/her, i would take > his/her hand in both of mine and slightly rub in to show my sympathy... > Violet This is the sort of detail that is missing from most Siouan dictionaries, sadly! And Buechel doesn't clarify that the underlying form is anuNkha. From mary.marino at usask.ca Tue Feb 3 05:39:26 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:39:26 -0600 Subject: Come and Suddenly (RE: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Excuse me: what are the "archives" that you mention in the last paragraph below? If there is an archive of these email exchanges I would like to know how to access them: I am trying to save portions for my PhD student (interdisciplinary studies) who needs some of this material but can hardly handle it on a message-by-message basis. I have been saving everything to compile for his Comps - suitably arranged and weeded out. This student is Dakota, but not in linguistics and not a fluent speaker. His research is in culture and history. Any help would be appreciated. Mary At 06:13 PM 2/2/2004 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > As far as I know, there are just four basic verbs of > > motion available: > > PS Da > > MVS *re, OP dhe, 'go' *rE(h) yA > > *u, i, 'come' *(h)u u > > *i, (?) hi, 'get there' *hi i > > *thi, thi, 'get here' *thi hi > >Dakota loses initial *h and and then reduces *th to h, so you do end up >with one h-form - but a diffferent form from OP, Winnebago, etc. > >The initial of *(h)u is a bit odd - another anomalous h. Most Dhegiha has >hu, but OP has just i < *u. The Dh first and second persons, in OP, too, >suggest hu, as you get phu/s^u (or phi/s^i in OP). We could put this down >to loss of h in the third person in OP, but there are two other oddities >with this stem that support *u. > >1) The vertitive is *ku (e.g., OP gi, Os ku), *not* *khu. >2) That Dakota compound hiyu, conservatively inflected hibu/hinu/hiyu, has >bu, not phu, in the first person. > >I'm inclined to think that the stem is *u, but that the first and second >person stem, maybe the third person stem, too, became *hu even in PMV by >analogy with *hi 'to arrive there'. In short, bu/s^u/u (an oral glottal >stop stem) was a bit too odd of a paradigm even for PMV. > > > So what other options do we have, if not the 'come' form? > >A mysterious fifth motion verb - a sort of generic covering both coming >and going. Or a locative, of course. Or I guess we could opt for >irregular raising of *u to i across Dhegiha and IO. I like that last >least. > >You can find these forms in (OP) text by looking for the appropriate >shapes (some with a- on the motion stems), or by searching on glosses like >start, begin, suddenly, or repeatedly. You also run into them >periodically in elicitation, e.g., try 'to push' or maybe 'to shove' or >'to throw'. Think of things that have to be done suddenly to be done >well, and make sure the context doesn't suggest a continuative or present. >That is, 'I pushed him', not 'I am pushing a grocery cart'. > >Or, you can find them under the suggested glosses in dictionaries, and, if >you look far enough, you find them appended to other verbs in dictionaries >of Dhegiha, IO, or Winnebago, generally with no gloss or explanation >offered. > >I haven't seen this latter pattern in Dakota, where they seem to be more >or less moribund (or not as productive). > >I haven't studied texts outside of OP, so I don't know how common >textually they are in other languages. In OP they are less common than >progressives, but there's maybe one example per page or so, on average. >I think you'd want to teach them at about the same point where Russian >courses start looking at perfective/imperfective in detail. Second year? > >Certain forms are more common, e.g., thidhe(dhe) (j^ire(hi) in IO or Wi), >dhedhe, idhe, idhaN(dhaN), but if you look in a large set of examples, >e.g., a whole dictionary or the OP texts, you find sporadic instances of >most of the combinatorial possibilities. > >If you ponder the semantics of given examples the motion verbs and >positional seem to make sense in terms of the path followed by the action, >or the shape of the object, etc., but I don't think I would be able to >predict forms for a particular verb confidently. > >It seems that you generally get one particular form with a given main >verb, not a variety of forms with different shades of meaning. In effect, >verbs have a sort of shape gender in the languages where these forms >prevalent. I've never done elicitation on this, so I really don't know if >all verbs have a particular "inceptive/instantive/frequentive" auxiliary >or not. Maybe some do vary the verb with intent or randomly, and maybe >some verbs can't take such auxiliaries. I didn't really notice the whole >thing until after my fieldwork, I'm afraid. > >The same sort of gender like consideration seems to govern whether you get >the, khe, or dhaN (or even ge) as an evidential particle with a given >verb. By the way, there was a nice khe evidential example in the >discussion of prairies, lowlands, and hollows - I think I let it go >without comment, figuring folks might get tire of my little obsessions. > >If desired I can supply some examples of "aorist" auxiliaries in context, >though I believe I may have done this already (check the archives). From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 12:22:37 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:22:37 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to offer. Thanks, Michael The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D�couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw Savansa? Thanks, as always, John From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 15:23:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:23:09 -0700 Subject: Archives of the Siouan List In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040202233544.01232c48@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > Excuse me: what are the "archives" that you mention in the last paragraph > below? If there is an archive of these email exchanges I would like to > know how to access them: I am trying to save portions for my PhD student > (interdisciplinary studies) who needs some of this material but can hardly > handle it on a message-by-message basis. See http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/siouan.html. Everything is there except one or two misposts that I have had removed at the request of the poster. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 15:38:12 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:38:12 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, etc., etc., in its many incarnations. Almost NO Native American languages had the consonant [v], and, as far as I know, none east of the Plains. (I think maybe some modern Mohawk and Creek dialect(s) may have it as an allophone.) I think someone just picked up the Dhegihan term /hkaaNze/, like the Illinois did, and Margry or his source made a mistake with it. The initial A- in the Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms including the O- of Ojibwe. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mccafferty" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:22 AM Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. > Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's Découverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Feb 3 15:45:19 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:45:19 -0800 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: Nothing really clicks here. The modern Miami-Illinois name for the Quapaw is /kaahpa/; /akaansa/ is in the earliest period a name for the Quapaw or just Dhegihans in general; later it's specifically the M-I name for the Kaw. 'Savansa' is reminiscent of the name for the Shawnees in many languages, which makes me think Margry might have gotten a little confused. Not that many M-I nouns begin with /s/, so if that's not the explanation, it's probably from some other language. And finally 'Wasa' looks like the later central Algonquian name for the Osage, as in M-I /was$aa$i/. That's all I can come up with strictly looking at the Algonquian end of it. Dave > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. Thanks, Michael > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. >> I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while >> searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic >> designation for the Quapaw in Margry's DÈcouverts... (1: 616): Savansa. >> According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of such >> a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms for the >> Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, >> Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything >> that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw >> Savansa? >> Thanks, as always, >> John From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 3 15:54:16 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:54:16 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's Découverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? In the Hdbk. of N. Amer. Indians (as distinct from Hodge's Hdbk. of Amer. Indians) Doug Parks says (XIII.512) "An anomalous historical form, Savansa, was recorded in 1684 as an alternate for Akansa, perhaps a transcriptional error (Tonti in Margry 1876-1886, 1:616)." Given the vagaries of ethnonym transcription and the lack of other examples, error is a good bet. Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 16:06:20 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:06:20 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Dave. The waa$aa$i notion i hadn't thought of. Best, Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, David Costa wrote: > Nothing really clicks here. The modern Miami-Illinois name for the Quapaw is > /kaahpa/; /akaansa/ is in the earliest period a name for the Quapaw or just > Dhegihans in general; later it's specifically the M-I name for the Kaw. > 'Savansa' is reminiscent of the name for the Shawnees in many languages, > which makes me think Margry might have gotten a little confused. Not that > many M-I nouns begin with /s/, so if that's not the explanation, it's > probably from some other language. And finally 'Wasa' looks like the later > central Algonquian name for the Osage, as in M-I /was$aa$i/. > > That's all I can come up with strictly looking at the Algonquian end of it. > > Dave > > > > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > > offer. Thanks, Michael > > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > >> I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > >> searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > >> designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D�couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > >> According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of such > >> a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms for the > >> Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, > >> Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything > >> that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw > >> Savansa? > > >> Thanks, as always, > > >> John > > > > > > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 16:04:58 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:04:58 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004101c3ea6b$ce4e63f0$0ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Right. I'm aware of these possibilities. Just wanted to search the more distant Siouan horizons. Thanks for the reply. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, > etc., etc., in its many incarnations. Almost NO Native American languages had > the consonant [v], and, as far as I know, none east of the Plains. (I think > maybe some modern Mohawk and Creek dialect(s) may have it as an allophone.) I > think someone just picked up the Dhegihan term /hkaaNze/, like the Illinois did, > and Margry or his source made a mistake with it. The initial A- in the > Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that becomes > /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms including the O- of > Ojibwe. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Mccafferty" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:22 AM > Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > > offer. > > Thanks, Michael > > > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D�couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > > > Thanks, as always, > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 16:05:59 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:05:59 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <401FC428.8070400@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Alan. I'll pass on your commment, too. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D�couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > In the Hdbk. of N. Amer. Indians (as distinct from Hodge's Hdbk. of > Amer. Indians) Doug Parks says (XIII.512) "An anomalous historical form, > Savansa, was recorded in 1684 as an alternate for Akansa, perhaps a > transcriptional error (Tonti in Margry 1876-1886, 1:616)." Given the > vagaries of ethnonym transcription and the lack of other examples, error > is a good bet. > > Alan > > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 3 16:33:32 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:33:32 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004101c3ea6b$ce4e63f0$0ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: R. Rankin wrote: > The initial A- in the > Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that becomes > /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms including the O- of > Ojibwe. The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) expressions, and not always then. Alan From mary.marino at usask.ca Tue Feb 3 16:43:08 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:43:08 -0600 Subject: Archives of the Siouan List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, John. This looks great. Mary At 08:23 AM 2/3/2004 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > Excuse me: what are the "archives" that you mention in the last paragraph > > below? If there is an archive of these email exchanges I would like to > > know how to access them: I am trying to save portions for my PhD student > > (interdisciplinary studies) who needs some of this material but can hardly > > handle it on a message-by-message basis. > >See http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/siouan.html. Everything is >there except one or two misposts that I have had removed at the request of >the poster. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Feb 3 17:59:01 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:59:01 +0100 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: Thanks to all for your help! I actually was misled by the different orthographies of _anunkasan_ (after looking at White-Hat's spelling - k-dot - I realize that there are no adjacent consonants *k-x). (Jan Ullrich) >This refers to the fact that the head and the tail of the eagle are white.<< That's it - of course!! How could I forget about this, having seen quite a couple of them :) I really would have liked the idea of _nupa_ being involved some way in _anunka_ (anunk/anung), but it seems that the _-ka_ part doesn't make sense as a separate word :(( Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 18:37:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:37:38 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: > And finally 'Wasa' looks like the later central Algonquian name for the Osage, as in M-I /was$aa$i/. Sorry, I forgot to mention this part. Wasa is the name of the Quapaw Black Bear clan. It's Siouan wa+sa 'something black', 'the black one', a taboo replacement form parallel to Osage and Kaw wasape/wasabe 'black bear'. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 18:54:59 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:54:59 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an Algonquianist. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:34 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) R. Rankin wrote: > The initial A- in the > Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that > becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms > including the O- of Ojibwe. The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) expressions, and not always then. Alan From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Feb 3 19:13:32 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:13:32 -0800 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: Actually, you guys are both right. There *is* an Algonquian short */o-/ (PA */we-/) that's used with ethnonyms. (And yes, this becomes /a/ thru normal processes in Miami-Illinois.) HISTORICALLY, tho, I don't think this is present in Ojibwe /ojibwe/ 'Ojibwe', at least not originally. Later speakers or speakers of sister languages might have analyzed it that way, tho. Dave > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or > maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > Algonquianist. > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:34 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > R. Rankin wrote: > >> The initial A- in the >> Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that >> becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms >> including the O- of Ojibwe. > > The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', > > as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to > puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives > says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) > expressions, and not always then. > > Alan > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 3 19:50:03 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:50:03 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DD5@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or > maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > Algonquianist. Dave Pentland said (4 years ago): > the name ocipwe:(w)- ... > it's an group name with prefixed o(t)- and final -V:w (as in kiristino:, and > (o)maske:ko:w 'Swampy Cree'), but -(c)ipw- is not a phonologically possible root > in Algonquian and must therefore be a foreign word. and later-- > Proto-Algonquian did not allow short *i in the first syllable of a word... > The non-Alg part could be either /ipw/ (with prefix *wet-, automatically > palatalizing to phonetic [c^] before *i), or /tipw/ (with prefix *we-). I guess all we can safely say at this point is that Ojibway is of unknown origin (how I hate to say that!) The o- prefix *does* occur in, e.g., early forms of Maskegon, Menominee, Miami, Mississagi, Monsoni, Otagamie, Sauk, all of which are etymologically transparent (swamp, wild rice, downstream, big-river mouth, moose, opposite shore, river-mouth, respectively). Alan From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 20:29:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:24 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: I'm happy with whatever people come up with on this. I remember reading Charles Hockett's paper entitled approximately "What Algonkian is really like" about 3 decades ago and deciding that I'd never been so confused in my life. In any event, I think my analysis holds at least for Akansa. :-) Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:50 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) Rankin, Robert L wrote: > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, > or maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > Algonquianist. Dave Pentland said (4 years ago): > the name ocipwe:(w)- ... > it's an group name with prefixed o(t)- and final -V:w (as in kiristino:, and > (o)maske:ko:w 'Swampy Cree'), but -(c)ipw- is not a phonologically possible root > in Algonquian and must therefore be a foreign word. and later-- > Proto-Algonquian did not allow short *i in the first syllable of a > word... > The non-Alg part could be either /ipw/ (with prefix *wet-, automatically > palatalizing to phonetic [c^] before *i), or /tipw/ (with prefix *we-). I guess all we can safely say at this point is that Ojibway is of unknown origin (how I hate to say that!) The o- prefix *does* occur in, e.g., early forms of Maskegon, Menominee, Miami, Mississagi, Monsoni, Otagamie, Sauk, all of which are etymologically transparent (swamp, wild rice, downstream, big-river mouth, moose, opposite shore, river-mouth, respectively). Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Feb 3 23:58:11 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:58:11 -0600 Subject: prairie - plains Message-ID: I asked one of our speakers last night what the Omaha for 'prairie' was. She couldn't think of it at the time, but called me back this afternoon after consulting with two other speakers. The word they came up with is xa'de-maNz^aN', literally 'grass-land'. I don't recall if this was mentioned before in the discussion. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 00:28:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:28:18 -0700 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wonder if Savansa is a printers or handwriting ghost for l'Akansa? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. > Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's Découverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 00:32:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:32:34 -0700 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004101c3ea6b$ce4e63f0$0ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I see Bob was there first! On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, > etc., etc., in its many incarnations. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 00:48:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:48:24 -0700 Subject: anuNg - nupa In-Reply-To: <401FE165.7060606@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > Thanks to all for your help! > I actually was misled by the different orthographies of _anunkasan_ > (after looking at White-Hat's spelling - k-dot - I realize that there > are no adjacent consonants *k-x). In case there is any uncertainty on this point, Siouanists, especially U of Colorado Siouanists, tend to write stop (C) + x for velarized affrication. There are a few minimal pairs for Ch vs. Cx in Teton, as I understand it, and I've noticed that Violet, who has a Colorado-influenced teaching and linguistic background, is scrupulous about writing Ch or Cx as appropriate. You also see Ch ~ Cx ~ Cs^ in writing aspiration in Osage and Kaw, two other Siouan languages with velarized (~ palatalized velarized) aspiration. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 01:04:32 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:04:32 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: <003101c3e9f2$f83b5020$1bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > That's an interesting point. I've been tempted to do a conference paper > on the causative-like K- that occurs with positional verbs. k-raN, > k-re, k-?oN-he bear the same relationship to raN, the, (w)uN that 'set, > stand, lay' bear to 'sit, stand, lie' in English, i.e., they behave as > if they had the causative suffix. The only other verb that behaves like > this that I know about is Dakotan kta 'kill' acompared with t?a 'die'. > The K- certainly behaves like a causative, but it would be very hard to > interpret as one since in languages with this word order have their > AUX's after the main verb all the rest of the time. FWIW. I've always associated the *k in these positional formations with the *k in vertitive motion verbs, assuming it had something to do with "returning to home position," or maybe something else more general like "place with respect to something." That wouldn't handle ktA, though. I kind of wonder about the "organic" *k in the root *k?u 'to give', too, though I think that may be just a plain dative, even though I don't think *?u is attested. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 4 01:57:52 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:57:52 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, but your explanation points to where that weird S- came from-- an l or an L. It's nice. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I see Bob was there first! > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > > I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, > > etc., etc., in its many incarnations. > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 4 14:43:03 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 07:43:03 -0700 Subject: SSILA Newsletter Message-ID: Hi, everyone, The most recent on-line SSILA Newsletter contains a request for information about a song in an unknown language. The text as reproduced looks to me as though it might be either Hochunk (lots of zhe, initial h+V sequences) or Dhegiha. Some of you who know those languages should be sure to check. I can forward the newsletter to you if you don't get it yourself. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 4 14:46:09 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:46:09 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Right. I believe in terms of "us" exclusive (off-list), this came up when Dave, John, Bob and I were "talking" about four years ago. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, David Costa wrote: > Actually, you guys are both right. There *is* an Algonquian short */o-/ (PA > */we-/) that's used with ethnonyms. (And yes, this becomes /a/ thru normal > processes in Miami-Illinois.) HISTORICALLY, tho, I don't think this is > present in Ojibwe /ojibwe/ 'Ojibwe', at least not originally. Later speakers > or speakers of sister languages might have analyzed it that way, tho. > > Dave > > > > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or > > maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > > Algonquianist. > > > > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:34 AM > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > > > > R. Rankin wrote: > > > >> The initial A- in the > >> Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that > >> becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms > >> including the O- of Ojibwe. > > > > The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', > > > > as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to > > puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives > > says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) > > expressions, and not always then. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 4 14:50:15 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:50:15 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339B5@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, explaining Algonquian was not Hockett's forte. That said, Algonquian is not an easy road. Joe Campbell, the Nahuatl scholar and dictionary maker, once told me that Nahuatl looked as if it were designed by engineers at Mercedes-Benz (or whatever they call it these days..Mercedes-Viacom??). Algonquian is as if Coyote were the engineer. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I'm happy with whatever people come up with on this. I remember reading > Charles Hockett's paper entitled approximately "What Algonkian is really > like" about 3 decades ago and deciding that I'd never been so confused > in my life. In any event, I think my analysis holds at least for > Akansa. :-) > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:50 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > > > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, > > or maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > > Algonquianist. > > Dave Pentland said (4 years ago): > > > the name ocipwe:(w)- ... > > it's an group name with prefixed o(t)- and final -V:w (as in > kiristino:, and > > (o)maske:ko:w 'Swampy Cree'), but -(c)ipw- is not a phonologically > possible root > > in Algonquian and must therefore be a foreign word. > > and later-- > > > Proto-Algonquian did not allow short *i in the first syllable of a > > word... > > The non-Alg part could be either /ipw/ (with prefix *wet-, > automatically > > palatalizing to phonetic [c^] before *i), or /tipw/ (with prefix > *we-). > > I guess all we can safely say at this point is that Ojibway is of > unknown origin (how I hate to say that!) > > The o- prefix *does* occur in, e.g., early forms of Maskegon, Menominee, > > Miami, Mississagi, Monsoni, Otagamie, Sauk, all of which are > etymologically transparent (swamp, wild rice, downstream, big-river > mouth, moose, opposite shore, river-mouth, respectively). > > Alan > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:42:03 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:42:03 -0600 Subject: SSILA Newsletter Message-ID: David, Sorry, I looked through it and deleted it. Could you snip out the song and post it on the Siouan List? Many thanks, Bob -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.Colorado.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: SSILA Newsletter Hi, everyone, The most recent on-line SSILA Newsletter contains a request for information about a song in an unknown language. The text as reproduced looks to me as though it might be either Hochunk (lots of zhe, initial h+V sequences) or Dhegiha. Some of you who know those languages should be sure to check. I can forward the newsletter to you if you don't get it yourself. 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 Wed Feb 4 15:45:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:45:33 -0600 Subject: Song in SSILA newsletter. Message-ID: Oops, I hadn't looked far enough ahead. It was the LAST SSILA newsletter I deleted. I have the new one here. Sorry, bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:49:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:49:33 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: > I've always associated the *k in these positional formations with the *k in vertitive motion verbs, assuming it had something to do with "returning to home position," or maybe something else more general like "place with respect to something." I've looked at all known K- prefixes and don't find the semantics of any of them at all satisfying. > I kind of wonder about the "organic" *k in the root *k?u 'to give', too, though I think that may be just a plain dative, even though I don't think *?u is attested. It never occurred to me to try to decompose k?u or ku?, whichever it was (it pops up both ways in different subgroups). Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:51:12 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:12 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: BTW, another variant spelling is Alkansa, with an "l" after the A. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:28 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) I wonder if Savansa is a printers or handwriting ghost for l'Akansa? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light > to offer. Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and > while searching for something else I came across the following > enigmatic designation for the Quapaw in Margry's Découverts... (1: > 616): Savansa. According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the > sole occurrence of such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to > Miami-Illinois terms for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier > Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two > syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything that might suggest a > possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:52:31 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:52:31 -0600 Subject: prairie - plains Message-ID: I don't know if that would be a "traditional" term or not, but it's a darn good translation -- probably the best I've seen so far. Please give them my thanks. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 5:58 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: prairie - plains I asked one of our speakers last night what the Omaha for 'prairie' was. She couldn't think of it at the time, but called me back this afternoon after consulting with two other speakers. The word they came up with is xa'de-maNz^aN', literally 'grass-land'. I don't recall if this was mentioned before in the discussion. Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Feb 4 16:11:32 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:11:32 -0600 Subject: SSILA Newsletter In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339B9@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, the song, unlike the chair, is not Osage. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:42 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: SSILA Newsletter David, Sorry, I looked through it and deleted it. Could you snip out the song and post it on the Siouan List? Many thanks, Bob -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.Colorado.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: SSILA Newsletter Hi, everyone, The most recent on-line SSILA Newsletter contains a request for information about a song in an unknown language. The text as reproduced looks to me as though it might be either Hochunk (lots of zhe, initial h+V sequences) or Dhegiha. Some of you who know those languages should be sure to check. I can forward the newsletter to you if you don't get it yourself. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 16:19:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:19:18 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I beleive this lyric is in Hochank (native name, various spellings) also known as Winnebago (in English use, from Algonquian sources). I'll forward it to the Siouan List. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Scott DeLancey wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > * Song text in an unidentified Indian (?) language > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >From Michelle Clemens (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) 29 Jan 2004: > > I have been put in charge of finding out the correct pronunciation of > the text of a song that our college choir will be performing. It is > one of the movements in "Song of the Skyloom," by Bernard van Beurden. > We will be performing the world premiere of this piece. > > In the orchestral score, the composer indicates that the song text in > each movement comes from a different Indian language. One movement is > based on a Lakota story, another is identified as Creek. The song that > I am interested in, however, is identified only as "Wunk-Hi Wawan." > The words are as follows: > > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka. Zhe > skeshunana; Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka zhe ske shunanaya. Hicha kolo > hinuk lo innagle wi dokanna na. Hizhan do maiku ka zhe ske shununa. > > Can anyone identify this language? I would really appreciate some help > on this. > > --Michelle Clemens > Carroll College, Wisconsin > (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Feb 4 16:22:34 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:22:34 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339BC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > BTW, another variant spelling is Alkansa, with an "l" after the A. If anyone's interested, I have a Word document with 42 illustrative quotations (1673-1846) for an OED entry for the ethnonym ARKANSAS, along with definition and etymology "slips", the latter thanks to Rankin, Koontz, and Costa. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 16:30:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:30:46 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339BB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > It never occurred to me to try to decompose k?u or ku?, whichever it was > (it pops up both ways in different subgroups). It may well be overanalysis, of course, but I had noticed that it was one of the few cases - the only one I know of, actually - of a Mississippi Valley Siouan root verb that is essentially trivalent, and that it agrees with the beneficiary as patient, just like derived trivalent verbs of the dative persuasion. Then I realized it began with *k, too. In a sense we have a smoking gun, but no body. I haven't noticed any cases of hypothetically underlying *(?)u, which might have meant something like 'to donate, to give away' or 'to present'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 16:37:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:37:04 -0700 Subject: anunk - nupa (fwd) Message-ID: I see I absent mindedly sent this to Jan directly, rather than the list! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:02:31 -0700 (MST) From: Koontz John E To: Jan Ullrich Subject: RE: anunk - nupa On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > anuNkhasaN > anuNkha - 'on both sides' > saN - 'whitish' > > This refers to the fact that the head and the tail of the eagle are > white. So, attaching my query to the last post in the sequence, anuNkha is capable of being reduced to anuNk (or anuNg) in dependent position in compounds? I think I recall seeing -pha listed as a source of -b. In any event, it looks like I can eliminate this form from the list! From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 4 20:22:53 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:22:53 -0700 Subject: SSILA Newsletter song text Message-ID: Sorry I was being so lazy this morning when I wrote about the request for help with the song text. Here is the relevant paragraph from the SSILA Bulletin #205; I would be interested in knowing what you all think. David >>From Michelle Clemens (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) 29 Jan 2004: I have been put in charge of finding out the correct pronunciation of the text of a song that our college choir will be performing. It is one of the movements in "Song of the Skyloom," by Bernard van Beurden. We will be performing the world premiere of this piece. In the orchestral score, the composer indicates that the song text in each movement comes from a different Indian language. One movement is based on a Lakota story, another is identified as Creek. The song that I am interested in, however, is identified only as "Wunk-Hi Wawan." The words are as follows: Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka. Zhe skeshunana; Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka zhe ske shunanaya. Hicha kolo hinuk lo innagle wi dokanna na. Hizhan do maiku ka zhe ske shununa. Can anyone identify this language? I would really appreciate some help on this. --Michelle Clemens Carroll College, Wisconsin (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Feb 4 20:55:52 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:55:52 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Message-ID: Hi gang: I have an 1870 treaty between the Dakota and Ojibway. The treaty is an inter-tribal one called the Ft. Abercrombie Treaty arranged by Fr. Genin. Who could I contact to have the Ojibway names translated? LouieG From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Feb 4 23:20:47 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:20:47 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) Message-ID: I think John is probably right. I've been looking at some Hochank texts lately, and hiz^aN, 'one', or 'someone', seems to be one of the commonest words in the language. Maybe one of the Hochunk specialists can comment further? Rory Koontz John E ssila at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Sent by: cc: Siouan List owner-siouan at lists.c Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) olorado.edu 02/04/2004 10:19 AM Please respond to siouan I beleive this lyric is in Hochank (native name, various spellings) also known as Winnebago (in English use, from Algonquian sources). I'll forward it to the Siouan List. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Scott DeLancey wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > * Song text in an unidentified Indian (?) language > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >From Michelle Clemens (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) 29 Jan 2004: > > I have been put in charge of finding out the correct pronunciation of > the text of a song that our college choir will be performing. It is > one of the movements in "Song of the Skyloom," by Bernard van Beurden. > We will be performing the world premiere of this piece. > > In the orchestral score, the composer indicates that the song text in > each movement comes from a different Indian language. One movement is > based on a Lakota story, another is identified as Creek. The song that > I am interested in, however, is identified only as "Wunk-Hi Wawan." > The words are as follows: > > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka. Zhe > skeshunana; Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka zhe ske shunanaya. Hicha kolo > hinuk lo innagle wi dokanna na. Hizhan do maiku ka zhe ske shununa. > > Can anyone identify this language? I would really appreciate some help > on this. > > --Michelle Clemens > Carroll College, Wisconsin > (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) From heike.boedeker at netcologne.de Wed Feb 4 23:20:44 2004 From: heike.boedeker at netcologne.de (Heike =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6deker?=) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:20:44 +0100 Subject: Algonquian made harder (was: Quapaw designation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 09:50 04.02.04 -0500, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >Well, explaining Algonquian was not Hockett's forte. "What Alg. is really like" was an a bit idiosyncratic attempt at a reply to a series of Pike/Ericson articles (which appeared somewhat earlier in IJAL), but basically, to borrow from Navajo, it was "Algonquian made easier", as a lot of complicating features were left out. So, e.g. reading his Potawatomi grammar (which likewise had appeared in IJAL) is "Algonquian made harder" and clarifying at the same time. Best, Heike From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Feb 4 23:33:02 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:33:02 -0800 Subject: Algonquian made harder (was: Quapaw designation) Message-ID: I would agree. Despite its name, "What Algonquian is Really Like" is a terrible place to start as anyone's introduction to Algonquian studies. Hockett's Potawatomi articles in IJAL are important but quite terse and very abstract phonologically, as well as hindered by the strange ideas of the time about what was important to put in a grammar and what was not important. They're not really very usable to anyone except people who already know a lot about Potawatomi or Ojibwe. As a *real* introduction to Algonquian grammar for a first-timer, I would wholeheartedly recommend Christopher Wolfart's Plains Cree sketch in volume 17 of the handbook. Dave Costa >>Well, explaining Algonquian was not Hockett's forte. > > "What Alg. is really like" was an a bit idiosyncratic attempt at a reply to > a series of Pike/Ericson articles (which appeared somewhat earlier in > IJAL), but basically, to borrow from Navajo, it was "Algonquian made > easier", as a lot of complicating features were left out. So, e.g. reading > his Potawatomi grammar (which likewise had appeared in IJAL) is "Algonquian > made harder" and clarifying at the same time. > > Best, > > Heike > From mckay020 at umn.edu Thu Feb 5 00:12:06 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (Cantemaza) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:12:06 -0600 Subject: Off the list question In-Reply-To: <000b01c3eb61$4683be60$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: Louis, I could give the list to the Ojibwe language instructor here at the U if you'd like. -Cantemaza de miye Louis Garcia wrote: >Hi gang: >I have an 1870 treaty between the Dakota and Ojibway. >The treaty is an inter-tribal one called the Ft. Abercrombie Treaty arranged >by Fr. Genin. > >Who could I contact to have the Ojibway names translated? >LouieG > > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 5 05:42:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:42:00 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Message-ID: Try John Nichols at the U. of Minnesota. He's one of the world's experts on Ojibwe and its dialects. Bob From mckay020 at umn.edu Thu Feb 5 06:26:48 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (Cantemaza) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:26:48 -0600 Subject: Off the list question In-Reply-To: <003601c3ebaa$d93ce440$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Louie, I was just going to say the same thing. John's office is just down the stairs from mine. -Cantemaza de miye R. Rankin wrote: >Try John Nichols at the U. of Minnesota. He's one of the world's experts on >Ojibwe and its dialects. > >Bob > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 5 08:15:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 01:15:46 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) Message-ID: What convinced me this was Winnebago was (1) "hizhan" = hiz^aN 'one, a', as Rory pointed out, (2) "Hicha kolo" = hic^ako'ro 'friend', and (3) a fairly frequent occurrence of final consonants. I'm not really familiar with Winnebago texts, either in terms of dealing with them regularly or in terms of knowing which ones are known. I don't. off hand, recognize the source of this one. My impression is that this is written in no very systematic orthography, or perhaps "simplified" from something like the Radin orthography by someone who didn't understand that. I've included a few potential identifications of words. > Wunk-Hi Wawan waNaNk hi man CAUSE The last word of the title resembles OP waa'waN, the name of the "pipe dance" or adoption ceremony, but I haven't identified a Winnebago form here, and I'm uncertain of the first part, too. Note that the text follows the repeated parallel lines approach that we see in Dhegiha ritual texts, too. Each line comes close to being in the form hiz^aN XXXX ka z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL (I?) ... one, always in that way. The repeated -ka element is a bit puzzling, but could be a first person causative following -k: -k + ha > -ka. The imperative inflects A1 =ha, A2 =ra, A3 =hi. Alternatively, there is a postverbal particle k?e 'often'. However, the vowels are generally along Continental lines and more or less accurate. I suspect that most of the elements I'm having difficulty with are verbs, probably first persons, possibly third. The first person hypothesis is supported by things like -do- in line one (because r stems have the inflection A1 dV- , A2 s^VrV, A3 rV), and maybe by the repeated -ka (along the causative lines suggested). As little as I understand the verbs here, it seems possible to me that this is a list of war exploits. > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL Here -ka is a problem after -c^. Presumably chuch is c^uc^, but -xux is 'break something brittle'. > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; hiz^aN git?ek (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one be bruised-I CAUSE thus habitually DECL > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. hiz^aN z^iz^ik (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL (vocable?) There is a verb booz^iz^ik 'to wiggle' in Marino. in which boo- is the outer instrumental 'by shooting', here essentially 'spontaneously'. The hi-locative paradigm (with regular verbs) is A1 yaa-, A2 hira-, A3 hi-. This might be relevant here and above in terms of -ya-, but wa-(h)i-(h)a- Obj3p-LOC-A1 is wi(i)a-, not waya- > Hicha kolo hinuk lo innagle wi dokan nana. hic^akoro hinuNk roo naNk (?) wi friend woman body (?) SIT PLUR > Hizhan do maiku ka[,] zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL In this line I think the verb might be ru?aN 'to carry' or possibly rogiguN 'to dare'. These have the first persons duu?aN and roagiguN, respectively. Marino lists ruaiNgu 'lift up', which is clearly based on the first and closer in form. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Feb 5 19:26:58 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:26:58 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) Message-ID: > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL So is HC z^e equivalent to OP dhe and Da le, 'this'? And is HC s^uNnuN equivalent to OP s^noN/hnoN/noN ? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 5 20:21:54 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:21:54 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > > one thus habitually DECL > > So is HC z^e equivalent to OP dhe and Da le, 'this'? No, it matches s^e, actually: dee, z^ee, gaa. This form is essentially equivalent to a hypothetical *s^e=ska, and =sge (or =ske) is listed by Lipkind as a dubitative, but the form z^ee'sge is defined as 'thus', cf. OP eska(naN) 'perhaps'. The 'in ... way' or 'wise' or 'like' enclitics seem to very pretty variable between the branches of MVS, though most of the particular forms you see have cognates. > And is HC s^uNnuN equivalent to OP s^noN/hnoN/noN ? S^uNunU does match s^naN and derivatives. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 7 01:18:26 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: In modern Omaha, the old =i particle after verbs seems to be dropped in verbs of declaration. This =i normally acted as a pluralizer, but it was also applied in the third-person singular in what John describes as "proximate" usage. Since the =i itself is generally dropped by our speakers, its former presence can be inferred only for verbs ending in -e, which ablaut to -a when the =i should be present. I've understood that rule for a long time with respect to active verbs, but I've been fuzzy about the situation with stative verbs. Today Mark and I worked with our speakers on stative verbs for a while, and it seems to have emerged that stative verbs work the same way, except that the 3rd person singular does not ablaut. Stative verbs use oN- for "me", dhi- for "you", (a)wa- for "us", and wa- for "them". So the basic conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb ending in -e seems to work as follows: bi'ze 'dry' oNbi'ze 'I am dry' dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' bi'ze 's/he is dry' wabi'za 'they are dry' Does this square with what other OP students have found? Thanks! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 7 05:41:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:41:42 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I've understood that rule for a long time with respect to active verbs, > but I've been fuzzy about the situation with stative verbs. Today Mark > and I worked with our speakers on stative verbs for a while, and it > seems to have emerged that stative verbs work the same way, except that > the 3rd person singular does not ablaut. Stative verbs use oN- for > "me", dhi- for "you", (a)wa- for "us", and wa- for "them". So the basic > conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb ending in -e seems to > work as follows: > > bi'ze 'dry' > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' wabi'za 'they are dry' > > Does this square with what other OP students have found? I remember ablaut in 1985 (ex. snede) and that and =i in the texts. I also don't remember wa- in stative plurals. However, I have gone back to the texts to see and found a complex situation. 'Dry' actually occurs and works as you describe, or so it appears from the limited examples. Exx. with bi'ze 'be dry' 90:563.3 niN' ga'=the bi'ze=tte water that it will dry up (*PI) 90:598.12 e'gidhe bi'ze ama at last (the hoop) was dry QUOTE (*PI) The subjects here are inanimate, and in the first case use an inanimate article. Exx. with wakhe'ga 'be sick' (not ablauting). Here we do find =(b)i, but note that this verb is probably not really stative, but rather an experiencer verb. The true patient is the wa- prefix. The subjects here are animate. 90:479.1/2 dhittaN'de wakhega= i your son in law was sick PI 90:487.8/9 Mis^e'dha ihaN' wakhe'ga he'ga= b=az^i Michel his mother is sick a little PI NEG (another French name!) Note common idiom 'not a little' = 'very much'. Here he'ga=z^i governs wakhe'ga 'be sick' and preempts the plural/proximate, but I assume we may still count it. 90:651.6 kki wa?u' wiwi'tta wakhe'ga ha and woman my is sick (*PI) DECL The lack of =(b)i in the third of the three preceding examples may depend on obviation? 90:482.10/11 s^iNgaz^iNga dhi'tta wakhe'ga= the e'=skaN, children yours are sick (*PI) EVID perhaps t?e'= iN=the s^aN' anaN'?aN kkaN'=bdha are dead perhaps even I hear it I wish Here apparently even a plural doesn't require =(b)i, but there may be something about irrealis that acts in these cases (note even t?e lacks =(b)i). Here we have another experiencer verb, apparently idhi'Nge 'he lacked', though it may be that the i is part of the 'sleep' expression. There is no =i, but this may be obviative? 90:62.18 Is^ti'nikhe=akha z^aN=th idhiNge ama Monkey the sleep he lacked (*PI) QUOTE From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 7 07:11:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:11:25 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've made a little progress, though it's anyone's guess if I'm getting somewhere or going astray. Things are taking an interesting turn if the former. On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > The repeated -ka element is a bit puzzling, but could be a first person > causative following -k: -k + ha > -ka. The imperative inflects A1 =ha, > A2 =ra, A3 =hi. Note that the h of the causative is not epenthetic, unlike a lot of word initial morpheme initial h. It is really there, and so it has a different set of morphophonemics. The h of hi is the h that makes Dakota khiyA and OP khidhe aspirated. The k is probably a dative marker. As Comrie has reported transitive causatives tends to involve a dative of the embedded subject. So the dative of hi is gigi < *ki + k + hi (true aspirates becoming voiced stops in Winnebago-Chiwere). > > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL > > Here -ka is a problem after -c^. Presumably chuch is c^uc^, but -xux is > 'break something brittle'. A possiblity might be horughuc^ 'to look at', if both gh (gamma) and c^ are rendered ch! > > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; > hiz^aN git?ek (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one be bruised-I CAUSE thus habitually DECL > > > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. > hiz^aN z^iz^ik (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL (vocable?) > > There is a verb booz^iz^ik 'to wiggle' in Marino. in which boo- is the > outer instrumental 'by shooting', here essentially 'spontaneously'. The > hi-locative paradigm (with regular verbs) is A1 yaa-, A2 hira-, A3 hi-. > This might be relevant here and above in terms of -ya-, but wa-(h)i-(h)a- > Obj3p-LOC-A1 is wi(i)a-, not waya- > > > Hicha kolo hinuk lo innag le wi dokan nana. hic^akoro hinuNk ro iNnaNk(i)re wi dookaNnaN=naN friend woman they follow me ?? I court (them?) HironaNk 'to follow', A1 hiroanaNk, so that I think hiroiNnaNk must be A12 or P1. RukaNnaN' 'to court, to woo', A1 duukaN'naN, plus declarative =naN (postvocalic form). > > Hizhan do maiku ka[,] zhe ske shununa. > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL > > In this line I think the verb might be ru?aN 'to carry' or possibly > rogiguN 'to dare'. These have the first persons duu?aN and roagiguN, > respectively. Marino lists ruaiNgu 'lift up', which is clearly based on > the first and closer in form. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 8 19:19:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:19:02 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: A little more progress. > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN hoduuc^uc^=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one I made him smart having thus habitually DECL The -ka in the first-third and fifth lines is presumably Lipkind's -ga "This suffix forms subordinate clauses which, if not connected causally with the principle clause, are yet associated in the sense of acompanying actions." Or, putting it another way, this is the conjunct marker, rather comparable to Omaha-Ponca egaN. Having failed utterly to recognize any plausible horuc^uc^ equivalent in Winnebago lexical materials I had ready access to, I started looking further afield and turned up Dakota yuthuta 'to make smart', 'smart' in the sense of 'sting': horuc^u'c^ would correspond regularly to a Dakota form like *oyu'thu'ta. The OP cognate of the root is -tti'de, which appears in naNtti'de 'to make a drumming noise with the feet'. It is, of course, risky to try to gloss one language based on another, not too closely related. Even different dialects of Dakota or Dhegiha sometimes vary significantly in their use of a particular form. However, for want of anything better, I am assuming "hodochuch ga" represents hoduu'c^uc^=ga, meaning something analogous to 'I having made him smart there' or 'I having struck him there'. I suppose the locative refers to an occasion or locality or body part. > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; hiz^aN waiagit?e=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one ... speak of having thus habitually DECL Here, after reflection, I think the underlying verb is more likely hit?e' 'to talk', which is the analog of OP i(y)e', incidentally, of which we were speaking recently. This might have a dative form 'to speak of someone' of the shape higit?e. > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. hiz^aN waiaz^iz^i =ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one ... whisper having thus habitually DECL (vocable?) A good parallel with hit?e might be z^iiz^i' 'to whisper', though this looks like it might be a hypothetical hiz^iiz^i, perhaps 'to whisper about'. Logically, it is possible that the inflected form here (and above) is 'they ... about me', but I'm not sure the forms work for that. In any event, it looks like the inflectional-locative string is the same in this line and the preceding one. > Hicha kolo hinuk lo innag le wi dokan nana. hic^akoro hinuNk ro iNnaNk(i)re wi dookaNnaN=naN friend woman they follow me ?? I court (them?) > HironaNk 'to follow', A1 hiroanaNk, so that I think hiroiNnaNk must be > A12 or P1. And I'm assuming that re represents (i)re, the third peson plural. > RukaNnaN' 'to court, to woo', A1 duukaN'naN, plus declarative =naN > (postvocalic form). > Hizhan do maiku ka[,] zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN =ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one having thus habitually DECL > In this line I think the verb might be ru?aN 'to carry' or possibly > rogiguN 'to dare'. These have the first persons duu?aN and roagiguN, > respectively. Marino lists ruaiNgu 'lift up', which is clearly based on > the first and closer in form. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Feb 8 19:42:03 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:42:03 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: Thanks, John. I gather we don't really have the stative verb system very well worked out yet for OP. The examples you have given are from Dorsey, and all are third person. The grammar for modern Omaha may have changed a bit, and we're looking for personal inflections here to build a conjugation paradigm. You may be right that ablaut may have to do more with proximate-obviative issues than with plurality; we need to pursue that angle more. Some verbs may apply only to inanimate objects, such as 'shallow' and 'deep' for water. Others may apply only to animate beings. Perhaps these are what you are referring to as 'experiencer verbs'; I'm not sure what all is included in this class. I think we have come up with a class of verbs that takes the patient pronoun set, applies almost exclusively to animate beings, and seems to behave pretty consistently. These verbs start with wa- and have the accent on the second syllable in the neutral form. The personal pronouns dhi- and probably wa- follow the initial wa-, and the pronoun oN- preceeds it, making the two syllables together oNwoN'-. Your example of wakhe'ga is typical: wakhe'ga 's/he is sick' oNwoN'khega 'I am sick' wadhi'khega 'you are sick' wawa'khega 'we are sick', or 'they are sick' Other words in this class seem to be: waxdhi' 'scared', 'frightened' was^ta'ge 'gentle', 'tame' was^u's^e 'kind-hearted' (often glossed 'brave') wasi'sige 'active', 'lively', 'clever', 'tought', 'spry' was^koN' 'energetic', 'strong' wase'koN 'fast', 'rapid', 'swift' wasni'de 'slow', 'tardy', 'late' waxpa'dhiN 'poor' waxu'be 'holy' wahe'he 'brittle', 'weak' wami' 'bloody' (as well as the noun, 'blood') We have been having a little trouble with the wa- ('us' & 'them') forms on some of our verbs, as you intimate. Some words, like toN'ga and s^toN'ga, are accepted readily in all forms including the wa-. Others seem to be acceptable with wa- only when the verb is preceeded by some other pronoun like woN'oNgidhe, woN'oNdoN, or s^e'ama. The words z^iN'ga, s^u'ga, bdhe'ka, gdhe'ze, gdhe'z^e, da', sagi' and nu'ka seem to fall into this category. My example of bi'ze now seems to have been particularly ill-chosen, as one of our speakers now seems to find wabi'ze/a unacceptable under any circumstance. Yet another interesting kink is that our speakers sometimes shift the accent to the last syllable of some multi-syllable stative verbs normally accented on the first syllable. Mark and I were told in our session on Friday that this is how one gives a comparative in Omaha: toN'ga - 'he is big' toNga' - 'he is bigger' oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in place of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite probable that I'm are confused on some things. Any further suggestions or comments on this would be very welcome! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 00:56:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:56:11 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks, John. I gather we don't really have the stative verb system > very well worked out yet for OP. Well, certainly not in regard to "proximate" marking and maybe wa plurals for the third person! Do you or Ardis have a better term for his? It really is something like conceptual proximacy or nearness or centrality in some sense, in Ardis's analysus, I think, but it's not really Agonnquian proximate/obviative marking. > The examples you have given are from Dorsey, and all are third person. > The grammar for modern Omaha may have changed a bit, and we're looking > for personal inflections here to build a conjugation paradigm. You may > be right that ablaut may have to do more with proximate-obviative issues > than with plurality; we need to pursue that angle more. I think we definitely need to establish what article sets work with the third person subjects in question. Maybe things work different for animates and inanimates? That's a fairly common Siouan pattern. It might not hurt to do a little context building in the elicitation, too, if that's not happening. I came to the conclusion - after my limited fieldwork, unfortunately - that that might alleviate some of the problems I was having with contexts. People often reacted to my examples by explaining that "people wouldn't say that." This would be a response to something like "I am tall" that seems perfectly natural in English, albeit even non-linguists are probably trained to a fairly high standard of tolerance decontextualization of academic languages like English by the educational system. The problem with "I am tall," by the way, was that it sounded like bragging. An ideal approach to contextualizaiton would be to work from a text offered by the speaker(s), but it might be possible to use arbitary scenarioes. Something like: "My brother got caught in the rain. He was really wet. He came home and dried off. Now he's dry. If he were talking to me he'd say "I'm dry." His friends were with him. Now they're dry." That sort of thing. > Some verbs may apply only to inanimate objects, such as 'shallow' and > 'deep' for water. Unfortunately, that seems to be true of a lot of statives. > Others may apply only to animate beings. Perhaps these are what you are > referring to as 'experiencer verbs'; I'm not sure what all is included > in this class. We've talked about these in the past. I think these are a difficult category to get hold of for Siouanists. I may be totally off track with them myself. They usually do have animate subjects. The subject governs patient or dative patient concord. However, there is a second noun in the frame, a theme I think it is sometimes called, the thing through which or by virtue of which the experiencer experiences the experience (sorry about that). A good example with a plain patient is - I believe - dhiNge' 'to lack, not to have'. The pattern is P1 aNdhiN'ge, P2 dhidhiN'ge, P12 wadhiN'ge, but this is clearly not a stative verb. There is an additonal element, the thing lacked. The thing lacked is the theme - if we can use that word. Is there a better oword? I suspect that in OP this thing lacked has to be a third person - that it would be unnatural or even impossible to lack a first, second, or inclusive person. Some form of periphrasis would be needed to address the concept. I have certainly never seen any examples like 'I don't have you'. A good example with dative patient concord seems to be git?e' 'for one's relative to be dead'. The kinship relation who has died is the theme. The inflectional pattern is P1 iNt?e', P2 dhit?e, P12 wet?e. Again, I don't think I've sen any examples like 'you are dead to me', though these a perhaps a bit more plausible, at least to anyone with with a Western, or at rather, European outlook. I think wakhe'ga is pretty much along these lines, but the body part that is the source of the illness is represented by wa-. I doubt you can say anything like 'I am sick to my stomach' with this verb, along the lines of *ni'gha ankhe'ga, though I've never asked. I think tha for this sort of hting you have to substitute ni(y)e 'to pain one', cf., ni'gha ni'e 'stomach ache'. This is also an experiencer, verb pattern, I believe, though the texts seem to have the experiencer pattern ni'gha i'nie, e.g. ni'gha aNdhaNnie 'my stomach pains me', and I'm not sure what the odds are between i'nie and nie. Anyway, I think that all the rather large class of wa-prefixed "statives" are probably actually experiencer verbs. Some may allow replacing wa with a noun, or even supplementing it. My point then is that experiencer verbs are not statives, though from a purely morphological point of view, they do mostly have just one patient inflection and are easily confused with statives, especially when it is not not always obvious from an English perspective that there is a second argument, as in the case of 'sick' or 'brave' or 'holy'. Nevertheless, I think that that in leaving experiencer verbs out of consideration we are making a serious error and one that will trip us up in various ways. For example, it would be extremely likely that experiencer verbs and statives would take proximate and plural marking in rather different ways. For one thing, there is another noun in the frame, and this might govern the plural/proximate marker or even a wa-prefix. For another, experiencer verbs do seem mostly to take animate "experiencer subjects" and animacy may also be relevant. (Here, in the interest of brevity, I've omitted the part of Rory's letter that lists specific wa-verbs that I suspect are experiencer verbs.) > We have been having a little trouble with the wa- ('us' & 'them') > forms on some of our verbs, as you intimate. Some words, like > toN'ga and s^toN'ga, are accepted readily in all forms including > the wa-. Others seem to be acceptable with wa- only when the > verb is preceeded by some other pronoun like woN'oNgidhe, > woN'oNdoN, or s^e'ama. The words z^iN'ga, s^u'ga, bdhe'ka, gdhe'ze, > gdhe'z^e, da', sagi' and nu'ka seem to fall into this category. > My example of bi'ze now seems to have been particularly ill-chosen, > as one of our speakers now seems to find wabi'ze/a unacceptable > under any circumstance. These all seem to me likely to be stative. The only thing I can think of is that some of the forms with wa- are effectively nominalizations, and the forms like s^e'=ama wabdhe'kka amount to 'these are thin things', whereas wabdhe'kka alone is just 'thing thing', and doens't make a good predication. > Yet another interesting kink is that our speakers sometimes > shift the accent to the last syllable of some multi-syllable > stative verbs normally accented on the first syllable. Mark and > I were told in our session on Friday that this is how one gives > a comparative in Omaha: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' Interesting. It may not be a comparative in the strict sense, but it does seem like some sort of focus-based accentual shift. > If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. > > oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' > oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' > > However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in > place of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: > > gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' > woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' > > Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite > probable that I'm are confused on some things. Any further > suggestions or comments on this would be very welcome! I wonder if some of the accented vowels are just long (...a=i > a:). This is one of the contexts where I used to think maybe there was length. It would be interesting to know what the pitch contours over these forms are. I suspect one of the things that trips people up in listening for accent is associating it with length (which is more or less an appropriate cue in English). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 01:27:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:27:15 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm sorry about all the typos in the preceding contribution. I am not the best typist, and, to top it off, my internet connection is a bit slow, so that the visual feedback associated with typing is somewhat off. Especially if I backspace to make a correction! In regard to experiencer verbs - by this I mean, essentially, a dative subject verb, like early New English think or seem, as in methinks or meseemeth. Or, for the students of Spanish, like olvidarse, as in se me olvido', or harking back to my ALM days, the full example is "Caramba, se me olvido' el cuaderno!" "Heck, it forgot itself to me the notebook!" i.e. "Heck, I forgot my notebook." Lots of languages have these, of course. I'm not sure if there are Algonquian analog, but methinks there are Muskogean ones. Note that, as far as I know, there is no way to get a first or second person inflection on ENE think or seem, or on modern Spanish olvidarse either for that matter. It's awkward to call these dative subject verbs in Siouan contexts, because dative is already being used for something rather different, and, of course, we would then have to refer to dhiNge' as a (non-dative) dative subject verb and git?e' as a dative dative subject verb. I feel like I have to draw a line somewhere, so I've settled on experiencer verb in lieu of dative subject verb. Another nice Omaha experiencer verb is giu'daN 'to like', literally 'to be good for one'. The example I'll never forget is the first witticism I ever understood (with a little help), i.e., Ni'NniN giu'daN=att(a)s^aN or 'She likes smoking a bit too much.' Literally, 'It is right up to tobacco is good for her.' The locative -a-tta plus s^aN 'completely', usually contracted to something like =ac^c^AN (voiceless or missing aN) is widely used for 'very'. This is not really a joke, but it caused everybody to chuckle in the context, so the elders explained it to me so I wouldn't feel left out. The first gloss is the one they offered. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 02:03:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:03:11 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: I will pass along an inspiration I had back in December or so. We got to discussing wa and what not and I set it aside. Call this my SSILA paper, albeit a somewhat offhanded one. It occurred to me that all my problems trying to explain Omaha-Ponca proximates historically come from starting with *pi = plural. But, of course, we know from the behavior of *pi with the inclusive, and with the plain first person in Winnebago, that *pi is NOT a plural, strictly speaking; rather, it is is augmentation marker, i.e., it means something like 'and some other guys'. A1 = 'I', and A1 + *pi = 'me and some other guys; nos alteres'; A2 = 'you', and A2 + *pi = 'you and some other guys; you all'; A12 = 'you and me', A12 + *pi = 'you and me and some other guys; us all'; A3 = 'he or she', A3 + *pi = 'him or her and some other guys'. So I asked myself, how do we get from 'him and some other guys' to 'he (proximate)', while just 'he' is 'he (obviative)'? And I answered myself (I was driving at the time), that doesn't work, but suppose *pi actually means 'X pre-eminently' or 'it was particularly X who'. That is, what if *pi was a sort of cleft construction, singling out a particular person among several for attention, but implying the participation of the others? In this case the plural reading, which is now the common one, e.g., A2 + *pi = 'you and some other guys' was origially 'it was particularly you who ...', which clearly implies the plural, i.e, that some other guys were also porentially participating. In Dhegiha, however, the combination A3 + *pi = 'it was particularly he who ...' has become not only 'he and some others' but also 'he (proximate)', or basically, the original reading preserved. Another way of looking at it is that if you start with proximity or focus, as the meaning of *pi, you can easily get to plural, while it's rather harder in the other direction. Of course, some of you may wonder what happens to the plural category in this case, but notice that the *pi "plural" is only reconstructed for Proto-Mississippi Valley. Other branches have other plurals. Also, it is rather weird to have the plural marker off at the other end of the verb, working idependently of the pronominals at the front, if it really has anything closely connected to do with them. But it is maybe not so weird to have a focus marker over there - a marker that does something independent of the pronominals, though involving them, and only later becomes a plural. I wonder if this assessment might not also offer a possible explanation of the *pi nominalizer in Dakotan, as in thi'=pi, etc. Seen this way, here it amounts to a sort of specific subject marker or inalienable possessor: 'she in particular lives (there)' or 'her dwelling' (which I believe is the historical Plains logic with respect to the gender of the owner of dwellings). I don't know if this specific subject logic works for *pi nominalizations in general, but it seems to work for thi'=pi. So, in a way, *pi 'specific subject' is the opposite of wa 'nonspecific object'. John E. Koont http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 05:35:12 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:35:12 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thinking on the wa ya aequence in the inflection of the second and third lines I think I've divined what it is. On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; hiz^aN wiiagit?e=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one speaks of us having thus habitually DECL > > Here, after reflection, I think the underlying verb is more likely hit?e' > 'to talk', which is the analog of OP i(y)e', incidentally, of which we > were speaking recently. This might have a dative form 'to speak of > someone' of the shape higit?e. > > > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. hiz^aN wiiaz^iz^i =ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one whispers about us having thus habitually DECL (vocable?) > > A good parallel with hit?e might be z^iiz^i' 'to whisper', though this > looks like it might be a hypothetical hiz^iiz^i, perhaps 'to whisper > about'. > Logically, it is possible that the inflected form here (and above) is > 'they ... about me', but I'm not sure the forms work for that. In any > event, it looks like the inflectional-locative string is the same in > this line and the preceding one. I have puzzled through Marten's complex generative analysis of the Winnebago inflectional string. Fortunately I took notes the last time ... I have also looked at Lipkind's tables of contractions. I have come to the conclusion that they are both saying that the P12 marker waNg...(h)a combines with the locative (h)i to produce wiia. Moreover Marten indicates that ii tends to sound as ee. I believe therefore that wa ya is intended to represent this wiia or P12 + (h)i. That is, P12 + (h)i comes out much like Omaha-Ponca wea in the same context. So I think perhaps that the verbs here are wiiagit?e=ga '(s)he having spoken of us' (waN + i + a + gi + t?e=ga) and wiiaz^iiz^i=ga '(s)he having whispered about us' (waN + i + a + z^iiz^i=ga). I'm still puzzled about line 5, and, of course, I hope it is clear that I could easily be way, way off about the rest, too. I'm always uneasy when I have to do this much guessing about the vocabulary, though I think I've been fairly careful to tie everything both to existing words and attested patterns of derivation on the one hand, and to a development of a text on the other. I suppose logically line 5 should reiterate the matter of line 1, or express some sort of successful denoument with regard to line 4, but as my first guesses on pretty much everything have been wrong, I wouldn't lay any money on my current suggested similarities to 'carry' or 'dare'. I am pretty sure it's all Winnebago. I don't think it was recorded in any of the usual sources, because the orthography is too different, and because the vocabulary hasn't found its way into the usual lists. Incidentally, while William Lipkind says that wa + (h)i/(h)a/(h)o contract to wi/wa/wo (presumably long), Marten says that they yield wawi/wawa/wawo. Anita Marten worked with John White Eagle of Madison, Wisconsin, from 6/63 to 2/64, and briefly with Howard White Thunder of Lyndon Station, Wisconsin. Lipkind thanks the residents of Winnebago, Nebraska and says the work was done in the summer of 1936. It's hard to say if the difference is temporal, dialectal, regional, or personal. In any event, it does show that there is some variation within the Winnebago speach community. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 05:49:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:49:00 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > hiz^aN wiiagit?e=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one speaks of us having thus habitually DECL One more thought. You could render z^eeskge=s^uNnuN=naN as 'that's the way it goes', I think. It's an interesting effect, the way this repeated expression is inserted into the conjunct, conjunct, conjunct, main, conjunct structure of the song, after each conjunct. I'm not clear if this expression provides the main clause for the conjuncts, or if the conjuncts depend on the fourth line. Maybe it's ambiguous. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 9 16:14:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:14:46 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: > Mark and I were told in our > session on Friday that this is how one gives a comparative in Omaha: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' > Interesting. It may not be a comparative in the strict sense, but it does seem like some sort of focus-based accentual shift. In Kaw it seemed to me that accent shift in words like tto'Nga 'big, great' was related to where the accent fell on the preceding word in the clause. Basically, there seemed to be a constraint against two accented syllables juxtaposed across a word boundary. "Comparison of adjectives" only exists if a language has real adjectives, of course. I confess I'm deeply suspicious about finding it in languages where the noun modifiers are essentially verbs. Most Siouan and Muskogean "comparative" constructions I have been able to elicit were adverbial or nominal in nature. So 'Bill is taller than Sam' would come out 'Sam is tall: Bill is a lot tall', or something very close to that. And in naturally occurring texts, there just weren't any "comparatives", of course. I can't say what is happening here, but it looks very much like some sort of suffix. I seriously question whether there is real comparison of "adjectives", and I suspect we should look at some other kind of explanation. It is perfectly natural for anyone whose primary language is one like English to want/expect to find an exact equivalent for every grammatical category, and I'm sure that every language can express degrees of some quality in some way. All I can say for sure about these Omaha forms is that I didn't get anything like this in Kaw when I tried out comparatives. It will be interesting to see what you guys can discover about this. It's fascinating data. Bob > If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. > > oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' > oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' > > However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in place > of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: > > gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' > woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' > > Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite probable > that I'm are confused on some things. Any further suggestions or > comments on this would be very welcome! I wonder if some of the accented vowels are just long (...a=i > a:). This is one of the contexts where I used to think maybe there was length. It would be interesting to know what the pitch contours over these forms are. I suspect one of the things that trips people up in listening for accent is associating it with length (which is more or less an appropriate cue in English). From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 9 20:28:54 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:28:54 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: Most of this makes really good sense to me. I think one could do a convincing step-by-step analysis of the semantic shifts. Although we only have a pluralizing morpheme with the shape */-api/ in Mississippi Valley Siouan, there are good cognates in Crow and Hidatsa with the form /aapaa/ 'with' in Crow and /aapi/ 'with' in Hidatsa (the Crow is actually /aap + haa/, so the corresponding morph is just /aap-/, and there is really no problem with the vowel correspondences). Both have exactly the semantic associations John predicts for the earlier (and current?) meaning of the grammaticalized MVS cognates, but the CR and HI forms are still independent words as far as I know. The CSD file for this item also mentions the Dakotan particle /ob/ 'with' as a possible cognate, in which case Dakotan would have developed doublets. John Koontz writes: > Another way of looking at it is that if you start with proximity or focus, as the meaning of *pi, you can easily get to plural, while it's rather harder in the other direction. > Of course, some of you may wonder what happens to the plural category in this case, but notice that the *pi "plural" is only reconstructed for Proto-Mississippi Valley. Other branches have other plurals. Also, it is rather weird to have the plural marker off at the other end of the verb, working idependently of the pronominals at the front, if it really has anything closely connected to do with them. But it is maybe not so weird to have a focus marker over there - a marker that does something independent of the pronominals, though involving them, and only later becomes a plural. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Feb 9 21:40:02 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:40:02 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: --- "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > The CSD file for this item also mentions the Dakotan > particle /ob/ > 'with' as a possible cognate, in which case Dakotan > would have developed > doublets. If someone asked me to guess what the origin of ob 'with' might be, I'd spontaneously come up with the verb opha 'to join (someone in doing something)'. Lakota has lots of postpositions that have arisen from full verbs, which are often subject to truncation (i.e. the final vowel is dropped and the voicing of the now word-final consonant changes) in the process of grammaticalization. An example of this is kah^log 'though', which originates in kah^loka 'to pierce'. Regina __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 9 23:40:55 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:40:55 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: The analysis of /ob/ 'with' in the CSD is either Dick Carter's, David Rood's or John Koontz's (I don't remember which), and I can't vouch for it. I can and do vouch for the Crow and Hidatsa forms, which were provided by Randy Graczyk and Wes Jones respectively. They match in both V and C. Ob would have an anomalous V; not a good sign. Dakotan -api (reanalysed as just -pi after /a/ replaced /e/ in many verb forms) is a clear cognate however. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "REGINA PUSTET" To: Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:40 PM Subject: RE: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer > --- "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > > > > The CSD file for this item also mentions the Dakotan > > particle /ob/ > > 'with' as a possible cognate, in which case Dakotan > > would have developed > > doublets. > > If someone asked me to guess what the origin of ob > 'with' might be, I'd spontaneously come up with the > verb opha 'to join (someone in doing something)'. > Lakota has lots of postpositions that have arisen from > full verbs, which are often subject to truncation > (i.e. the final vowel is dropped and the voicing of > the now word-final consonant changes) in the process > of grammaticalization. An example of this is kah^log > 'though', which originates in kah^loka 'to pierce'. > > Regina > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > From pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Feb 10 00:53:30 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:53:30 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <002801c3ef66$3cde9a70$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: --- "R. Rankin" wrote: > The analysis of /ob/ 'with' in the CSD is either > Dick Carter's, David Rood's or > John Koontz's (I don't remember which), and I can't > vouch for it. I can and do > vouch for the Crow and Hidatsa forms, which were > provided by Randy Graczyk and > Wes Jones respectively. They match in both V and C. > Ob would have an anomalous > V; not a good sign. Dakotan -api (reanalysed as > just -pi after /a/ replaced /e/ > in many verb forms) is a clear cognate however. It would be interesting to check on the etymology of opha 'to join' as well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, related. The semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just to close to be neglected, at least to me. Regina __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 07:07:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:07:22 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <20040210005330.46933.qmail@web40011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > It would be interesting to check on the etymology of opha 'to join' as > well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, > related. The semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just to > close to be neglected, at least to me. Now that she points it out, I agree with Regina that ob seems like it might derive from o'phA, which in Buechel is glossed 'to go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. This seems to derive from a more complex gloss in Riggs 'to go with, to follow; to pursue, as opa aya [i.e., ophA + ayA 'to go' form 'to pursue']; to go to , attend, as a school or meeting, to be present at; to be a member of, as an association or church; to go in, as in a canoe ...'. We've just verified that Dakota verbs in final ChV (aspirated stop) can reduce to -C (final unaspirated stop) in subordinated forms. In the CSD the Crow-Hidatsa forms and ob are only mentioned in the over all notes for this slip. I don't know anything about the history of this slip. I think the grammatical slips rather languished after the first year. It looks like this one could use some modifications in light of a better current appreciation of why Dhegiha plurals sometimes end in -e or -a instead of -i (gender-coding declaratives e or a?), and the morphophonemics of the Omaha-Ponca plural are eliminated. It seems to antedate the "proximate" terminology for Dhegiha third person singulars with "plural" marking. Actually, I am pretty amazed to discover that there are Crow-Hidatsa forms that might provide an explanation of the origin of +(a)pi that is in line with the 'pre-eminent among others' sort of focus that I was appealing to, and I appreciate Bob making the connection and pointing it out. What the slip says is that Hidatsa has aapi 'with' and Crow has a'appaa in which the latter part -paa derives from the common adverbializer -haa, which looks in turn like a cognate of the =ha postposition in Omaha-Ponca that is glossed 'in places, in directions'. For example, du'(u)ba=ha 'in four places', dhabndhiN=haN 'in three parties', gu'=di=ha 'further off (yonder direction)', etc. This is particularly common with numerals and in songs. I suppose this analysis requires that the Proto-Crow-Hidatsa form is *a'api, and Crow has =haa added to reduced *a'ap? I'm vague on what happens to aspiration in Crow-Hidatsa. I think it more or less disappears, i.e., that *hp and p, for example, behave the same. So, PS *hpa(re) 'bitter' with Hi (ara)pari 'bile', OP ppa 'bitter', and also PS *paN(he) 'call', with Hi paa (imp. sg. pah) 'shout', OP baN. 'call'. Now, if the PCH forms is *a'api and not *a'aphaa, it seems unlikely that the root here is the root in Da o'phA, which looks more like the 'go, travel' root *phE that appears as -hE in Omaha-Ponca, e.g., (udh)uhE 'to follow (a trail)', Osage (odh)o[ps^]e, IO (ir)owe(=are). (This is the comparison made in Dorsey 1895, if I recall, and I think it is correct.) In fact, the two forms look like cognates, though the CSD seems to cross up the OP form with some other Dhegiha -hV forms probably of a different origin and compares Da okhihe 'follow' instead. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 08:29:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:29:42 -0700 Subject: OP Accent (was RE: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DD9@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' > > In Kaw it seemed to me that accent shift in words like tto'Nga 'big, > great' was related to where the accent fell on the preceding word in the > clause. Basically, there seemed to be a constraint against two accented > syllables juxtaposed across a word boundary. In this case there's a pronominal shielding against this affect in the second case, but I agree that a comparative per se seems an unlikely explanation. But if there were a different degree of emphasis, a comparison might be implicit. In the Dorsey OP texts avoiding accent on the preceding word seems irrelevant, in the sense that we find mikka' ttaN'ga 'big raccoon', iNs^ta' ttaN'ga 'big eye', and so on, but tta's^ka-hi ttaNga'=xti 'very big oak tree', ttaNga'=kkiz^i 'when it is big', ttaNga'-dheha 'large around', ttaNga'=bi, a'higi ttaNga' 'a great many'. My argument used to be that forms that did this had different accentual pattens when they had enclitics attached, or when they were modifiers vs. independent verbs (often with enclitics). I started noticing that accent was fairly moveable in Dorsey, at least for some words, about the time I ran out of time on my dissertation. A very awkward time to notice that I didn't understand accent as well as I had thought. Of course, another possibility is that English speakers, including Dorsey, hear accent all wrong, or miss length changes that control it. I definitely stumbled almost invariably in recording accent until I started looking for HL patterns (inspired by Ken Miner's description of Winnebago and Randy's description of Crow). As soon as I started doing that Mr. Wolfe stopped correcting every word and looking puzzled. On various occasions I was forcibly recalled to a realization that a word pronounced with English intonation was so wrong sounding as to be unrecognizable. If the intonation wasn't approximately right people wouldn't even attempt to parse what I'd said. As to how this might account for Dorsey's patterns, imagine that ttaNga'=kkiz^i is ttaN(H)gaa(L)=kki(L)z^i(L) or something that gets heard as ttaNga'=kkiz^i, where, for the moment, ' marks "English style" accent. I can definitely put "English style" accent on the L in a HL, and I think what I'm doing is putting length plus maybe a slight fall there. I also wonder if my ear doesn't more or less ignore the rather pronounced HL business of Omaha accent in favor of the slighter LHL I produce in the the second syllable. The first is "just that sing-song thing" while the second is "real accent." I do know one place where Dorsey and Fletcher & LaFlesche between them seem to agree that there is a patterned difference in accent, and that is in "female vocatives." A certain number female-speech vocatives are marked with either initial accent, or final (on the vocative particle) accent or both, as opposed to the male term with accent on the intervening second syllable. For example, look at Fletcher & LaFlesche, p. 315, last column where we see Dadi'ha, TigoN'ha, Negi'ha, Timi'ha (male forms), but Da'diha, Ti'goNha, Negiha (no marking), Timiha' (female forms), and so on. Reading between the lines, I suspect that the f pattern is really not CV'CVCV alternating with CVCVCV', but CV'CVCV', whatever that may mean in intonational terms. (I only worked with male speakersand don't recall noticing anything like the "female" pattern.) And in Dorsey, z^iNdhe'ha 'elder brother' (m) (also z^iN'dheha'), dadi'ha 'father' (m), but dadiha' 'father' (f), ttinuha' 'elder brother' (f), ttigaNha' 'grandfather' (f), etc. Since the male forms sometimes follow the female pattern (though infrequently), and the female forms sometimes follow the male pattern (though infrequently), I'm thinking that the pattern has something to do with a pattern of emphasis or emotional coloring that is socially more appropriate for females than males, but not absolutely sex-associated. I notice that both sexes are regularly reported to say kkaNha' 'grandmother' and (iN')naNha(u)' 'mother', so perhaps the "female" pattern amounts to "sweetening." (I used to work a lot with female computer programmers, and got in the habit of agreeing to things with a nice bright pleasant falling intonation on "OK!" I then accidentally used that in talking with a visiting male math professor, who swiveled around and stared at me for a second in surprise. After that I was careful to bark "Sure thing!" in a particularly gruff tone when agreeing with him.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 08:48:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:48:42 -0700 Subject: OP Accent (was RE: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Another vocative shift, though in ths case it is between the vocative and the referential form. Ths is very regular in the texts. nudaN'haNga=akha 'the warleader' nu'daNhaNga' 'o warleader' I find both nu'daN and nudaN' for 'warpath'. I didn't notice a conditioning factor. I did notice one anu'daN 'I go on the warpath'. I hadn't previously realized this form could be inflected, and I'm not sure it is very frequently. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 14:33:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:33:41 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: > It would be interesting to check on the etymology of > opha 'to join' as well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. > -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, related. The > semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just > to close to be neglected, at least to me. I wonder if there are other instances of aspirates reducing to voiced stops (or nasals) word- or syllable-finally? I know this happens to /p, t, k/ --> /b, l/d, g/, but I'm a little surprised to see it with /ph/. I'm no Dakotanist though, so I defer to you guys on these sound changes. The only /ophE/ I know of in Dhegiha is the verb 'step, tread, follow a path'. I'll look for 'join'. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 14:46:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:46:44 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: > Now that she points it out, I agree with Regina that ob seems like it > might derive from o'phA, which in Buechel is glossed 'to go with, follow; > be present at, take part in'. This seems to derive from a more complex > gloss in Riggs 'to go with, to follow; to pursue, as opa aya [i.e., ophA + > ayA 'to go' form 'to pursue']; to go to , attend, as a school or meeting, > to be present at; to be a member of, as an association or church; to go > in, as in a canoe ...'. We've just verified that Dakota verbs in final > ChV (aspirated stop) can reduce to -C (final unaspirated stop) in > subordinated forms. OK, that answers my questions about the aspirates reducing to sonorants syllable-finally. And Dhegiha /ophe'/ 'step, follow', then, is the same as DA /opha/. > I suppose this analysis requires that the Proto-Crow-Hidatsa form is > *a'api, and Crow has =haa added to reduced *a'ap? I think the status of /-haa/ was pointed out by Randy, but in any event I defer to him in all matters Crow. > I'm vague on what happens to aspiration in Crow-Hidatsa. I think it more > or less disappears, i.e., that *hp and p, for example, behave the same. > So, PS *hpa(re) 'bitter' with Hi (ara)pari 'bile', OP ppa 'bitter', and > also PS *paN(he) 'call', with Hi paa (imp. sg. pah) 'shout', OP baN. > 'call'. I did an MALC/Siouan Conf. paper in Boulder on the PSI "C+h aspirates". There is direct evidence from the paradigm of 'speak' that aspiration was simply lost in Mandan. As I recall there was indirect evidence for the same loss in Crow and Hidatsa, but I'd have to get the paper out for the details. You probably have it in the MALC volume. Crow and Hidatsa do have some C+h aspirates, but I don't think we have cognates for them and I am guessing that they are secondary. Lots more work there though. . . . > Now, if the PCH forms is *a'api and not *a'aphaa, it seems unlikely that > the root here is the root in Da o'phA, which looks more like the 'go, > travel' root *phE that appears as -hE in Omaha-Ponca, e.g., (udh)uhE 'to > follow (a trail)', Osage (odh)o[ps^]e, IO (ir)owe(=are). (This is the > comparison made in Dorsey 1895, if I recall, and I think it is correct.) > In fact, the two forms look like cognates, though the CSD seems to cross > up the OP form with some other Dhegiha -hV forms probably of a different > origin and compares Da okhihe 'follow' instead. That needs to be fixed. The problem is that I cannot do any editing on the CSD entries as we discover these things because there is no editable computer file. We'll have to fix that too next Summer sometime. Bob From napshawin at msn.com Tue Feb 10 15:47:29 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:47:29 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: FOR WHAT ITS WORTH: >Now that she points it out, I agree with Regina that ob seems like it >might derive from o'phA, opxa means to be included, or to include one's self in going or doing something with others, if one is going with others we can say 'ob ye' or 'opxa' or 'opxa ic'iye'... opxa and ob mean exactly the same thing, ob is just a short cut... I try to help you all in this way, by explaining the Lakxota words when i can .... This seems to derive from a more complex >gloss in Riggs 'to go with, to follow; to pursue, as opa aya [i.e., ophA + >ayA 'to go' form 'to pursue']; to go to , attend, as a school or meeting, >to be present at; to be a member of, as an association or church; to go >in, as in a canoe ...'. BE CAREFUL. THE D DIALECT USES THE TERM A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE L DIALECT. FOR US IT WOULD SEEM ungrammatical to say 'opa aya' which is pure Dakxota, to pursue for us would be 'pasi aya pi' so we would n't say 'opa aya' in the same way, not to mean the same thing, because our dialect is more particular about how things should be said or how words should be used. pi doesn't fit into the picture here at all with ob or opxa, unless we say 'they' included themselves or 'they' went with someone 'opxa pi' or 'ob eyayab' or 'ob iyaya pi' but we can't say 'opxa iyaya pi' I hope all this makes sense _________________________________________________________________ Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 10 16:32:54 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:32:54 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: In the Relation de l'Abbe de Gallinee from 1669, and in the 1876 version of Margry (Decouvertes et etablissements des Francais), where the Ohio River is discussed on page 116), as well as in Hanna (1911, Wilderness Trail, Vol. 1, p. 121, we find that down the Ohio from Iroquoia ones encounters, first, the Andaste, then Shawnee, then a great rapids (Falls of Ohio at Louisville), then Outagamie, then "land of the Iskousogos," and finally the "land of the wild cattle" (presumably the Illinois prairies from modern Wabash westward). I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan vocable. Thank you, Michael From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 18:23:28 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:23:28 -0600 Subject: ophe' Message-ID: Although it's hard to prove, I suspect this may be a composite of the Mississippi Valley Siouan */he/ 'be in a place; locative be' that we find compounded in the positional auxiliaries (virtually all of them), niNk-he, thaN-he, adhiN-he, k-he. So it would be /op/ (ob) + /he/ 'be with in a location'. At any rate, it's a nice idea and it fits what we see. bob From wablenica at mail.ru Tue Feb 10 18:41:01 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:41:01 +0300 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <006801c3efe2$f572ba90$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Hello all, It looks that there are (were) two "opha" verbs: o'pxa, o'wapxa, o'uNpxapi, "to join; follow; participate" in Boas&Deloria, and opxA', owa'pxe, uNko'pxapi, "to go by way of". Tuesday, February 10, 2004, 5:33:41 PM, R.Rankin wrote: >> It would be interesting to check on the etymology of >> opha 'to join' as well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. >> -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, related. The >> semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just >> to close to be neglected, at least to me. RR> I wonder if there are other instances of aspirates reducing to voiced stops (or RR> nasals) word- or syllable-finally? I know this happens to /p, t, k/ --> /b, RR> l/d, g/, but I'm a little surprised to see it with /ph/. I'm no Dakotanist RR> though, so I defer to you guys on these sound changes. RR> The only /ophE/ I know of in Dhegiha is the verb 'step, tread, follow a path'. RR> I'll look for 'join'. Cf. Boas & Deloria "Dakota Grammar", Page 35. Outside of the CVC group contraction of verbs ending in a occurs in the groups pha and kha. All the contracted forms are adverbial. chapha' to stab, icha'p, acha'p sticking in, on it; chopha' to wade, mnicho'p wading in water; o'pha to join, op in company with several; napha' to flee; ina'p hiding behind, ai'nap on the farther side of (hidden by); with the verbs of arrival i, hi, gli, khi, -napha does not contract: hina'pha to come out from; otha'pha to follow in the tracks of someone, oye'othap following tracks, atha'p following on (the heels of someone), i'thap soon after, already; i'tkokhipha to go to meet face to face, itko'p going out to meet someone who is coming; khapha' to beat in a contest, to have a superabundance (akha'p exceedingly) Others do not contract, p.e.: akhi'pha to happen to meet face to face; opha' to go by a certain way, but wato'pha to row a boat (wa'ta-opha'), forms wato'p; apha' to strike; ithuN'pha to admire, be careful with; ikho'pha to fear lest; khoki'pha to be afraid; aho'pha to honor, to observe a law In the group kha we find: anuN'kha(taNhaN) anuN'k on both sides; to'kha, to'k it is some way, how is it -- Best regards, Constantine mailto:wablenica at mail.ru From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 20:27:56 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:27:56 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan vocable. Well, as it stands it looks remarably unlike typical (Mississippi Valley) Siouan forms, but this is more of a fuzzy instinct based on what phonemes are where - call it typical morpheme patterns or canonical form - than any outright impossibilities. I assume the final s is to be taken as part of the form, and not a French morpheme? I suppose something like you could see in the initial isk- something like ieska < i(y)e 'to speak; word(s)' + ska 'clear, white', which is fairly widely used for translators and speakers of the local language and sometimes as a self-designation. But you have to assume that had something else appended to it to account for the -usogos/usokos. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 20:44:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:44:50 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: It's a mystery to me too. Looks like nothing I've ever seen. I assume if it's French spelling that it represents something like [iskuzogo], with or without the final consonant. But that doesn't give me any bright ideas. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:28 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Iskousogos On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan > vocable. Well, as it stands it looks remarably unlike typical (Mississippi Valley) Siouan forms, but this is more of a fuzzy instinct based on what phonemes are where - call it typical morpheme patterns or canonical form - than any outright impossibilities. I assume the final s is to be taken as part of the form, and not a French morpheme? I suppose something like you could see in the initial isk- something like ieska < i(y)e 'to speak; word(s)' + ska 'clear, white', which is fairly widely used for translators and speakers of the local language and sometimes as a self-designation. But you have to assume that had something else appended to it to account for the -usogos/usokos. From tleonard at prodigy.net Tue Feb 10 21:26:24 2004 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:26:24 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: Can't make hide nor hair out of "Iskousogos"......but I recall the word "Outagamie" as coming from Sac & Fox (Mesquakie) [?] not sure. TML From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Feb 11 00:10:58 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:10:58 -0500 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Hey! I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural. It is a pluralizer in Lakota as well (as Violet Catches (Thanks Violet & I hope I am not misunderstanding/misrepresenting your information) pointed out in her explanation, it's used with 'they'). Sometimes, I'm dense with the historical though. I think that analyzing pi as plural actually leads to a very coherent grammaticalization pathway to its role as proximate marker. I pasted a piece of the diss below which discusses it. It's not a final version (God grant that someday such a thing will exist); comments are great. Best, Ardis ... Third person plural verbal marking is also used as a backgrounding device. That is, when the subject is unimportant/unspecified, third person plural verbal morphology without an overt subject NP is used (51). 51. Khi Itigonthai akha monzhon thon wethinwin-bi a- i.... And Grandfather the land the sold it- pl he said-PL 'And Grandfather said that the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) In the subordinate clause in (51), the land is of central concern and the person(s) selling it are backgrounded (also reflected in the use of the passive in the translation). In the Omaha construction, the third person plural subject governs the plural affix and the third person singular object �land� is zero-marked. The plural subject, which has no overt NP and is relatively unimportant, co-occurs with a singular object which has an overt NP and is of central concern. Such occurrences could be re-analyzed as a singular object governing a plural morpheme. Another example of a singular NP occurring with plural verb marking (which refers to a subject without an overt NP) is given in (52). 52. Egithe itonge thinkhe tizhebegthon gaxa-bi-ton-ama, It happened sister the door make-pl-AUX-EVID a khe agthonkonhon konton-bi egon ubatihetha-bi-ton- ama. Arm the on each side tie-pl having hung up -pl-AUX-EVID �And behold their sister had been made into a door: having been tied by her arms on both sides, she had been hung up.� (JOD 81.19) In (52), again a singular object co-occurs with plural verb morphology. (And again, passive voice is used for translation.) Were the plural to be re-analyzed as marking the object �girl� in some way, it could not be marking number, but rather must be marking some sort of discourse status (what is of central concern). A pattern of marking third singular subjects with the 'plural' to show discourse status (rather than number) could logically result from such a reanalysis. As all other person forms overtly mark the verb, this reanalysis is possible only with third person singulars. ... From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Feb 11 03:23:24 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:23:24 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan vocable. It brings to mind Ojibway ishkw- 'last, end, remaining'. There is, e.g., eshkwagama 'last lake (in a chain)'. But it's probably one of those names whose meaning, absent additional sources, is irretrievable. Alan From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed Feb 11 10:27:00 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:00 +0000 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: It put me in mind of Algonquian names such as Missisauga. Could it be Alg? Anthony >>> rankin at ku.edu 10/02/2004 20:44:50 >>> It's a mystery to me too. Looks like nothing I've ever seen. I assume if it's French spelling that it represents something like [iskuzogo], with or without the final consonant. But that doesn't give me any bright ideas. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:28 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Iskousogos On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan > vocable. Well, as it stands it looks remarably unlike typical (Mississippi Valley) Siouan forms, but this is more of a fuzzy instinct based on what phonemes are where - call it typical morpheme patterns or canonical form - than any outright impossibilities. I assume the final s is to be taken as part of the form, and not a French morpheme? I suppose something like you could see in the initial isk- something like ieska < i(y)e 'to speak; word(s)' + ska 'clear, white', which is fairly widely used for translators and speakers of the local language and sometimes as a self-designation. But you have to assume that had something else appended to it to account for the -usogos/usokos. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 11 17:00:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:00:24 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if Marquette's 8AB8SKIG8 has any Siouan features. I tend > to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I notice > there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself Wablenica, > which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think that's available here. Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I think I remember someone having a different insight into it. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Feb 11 17:09:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:09:13 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: Hey Ardis! Don't we have at least three issues playing here with the =bi and =i markers? 1. Plurality 2. Proximatization (focus on subject) 3. Passivization (focus removed from grammatical subject) I can see getting passivization from plurality, as is common in Dakotan, and it seems to me that that's what your examples show. But how we change that into focus on the subject, or even the object, eludes me. > 51. Khi Itigonthai akha monzhon thon wethinwin-bi a- > i.... > And Grandfather the land the sold it- pl > he said-PL > 'And Grandfather said that the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) For this one, you seem to be arguing that moNzhoN', as the object, gets the focus in the subordinate clause by passivizing the subject of the sellers while using =bi as a pluralizer. But if that leads to proximatization of moNzhoN', then shouldn't moNzhoN' be marked with the proximate positional akha' rather than dhoN? Best, Rory are2 at buffalo.edu Sent by: To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu owner-siouan at lists.c cc: olorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer 02/10/2004 06:10 PM Please respond to siouan John, Hey! I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural. It is a pluralizer in Lakota as well (as Violet Catches (Thanks Violet & I hope I am not misunderstanding/misrepresenting your information) pointed out in her explanation, it's used with 'they'). Sometimes, I'm dense with the historical though. I think that analyzing pi as plural actually leads to a very coherent grammaticalization pathway to its role as proximate marker. I pasted a piece of the diss below which discusses it. It's not a final version (God grant that someday such a thing will exist); comments are great. Best, Ardis ... Third person plural verbal marking is also used as a backgrounding device. That is, when the subject is unimportant/unspecified, third person plural verbal morphology without an overt subject NP is used (51). 51. Khi Itigonthai akha monzhon thon wethinwin-bi a- i.... And Grandfather the land the sold it- pl he said-PL 'And Grandfather said that the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) In the subordinate clause in (51), the land is of central concern and the person(s) selling it are backgrounded (also reflected in the use of the passive in the translation). In the Omaha construction, the third person plural subject governs the plural affix and the third person singular object ‘land’ is zero-marked. The plural subject, which has no overt NP and is relatively unimportant, co-occurs with a singular object which has an overt NP and is of central concern. Such occurrences could be re-analyzed as a singular object governing a plural morpheme. Another example of a singular NP occurring with plural verb marking (which refers to a subject without an overt NP) is given in (52). 52. Egithe itonge thinkhe tizhebegthon gaxa-bi-ton-ama, It happened sister the door make-pl-AUX-EVID a khe agthonkonhon konton-bi egon ubatihetha-bi-ton- ama. Arm the on each side tie-pl having hung up -pl-AUX-EVID ‘And behold their sister had been made into a door: having been tied by her arms on both sides, she had been hung up.’ (JOD 81.19) In (52), again a singular object co-occurs with plural verb morphology. (And again, passive voice is used for translation.) Were the plural to be re-analyzed as marking the object ‘girl’ in some way, it could not be marking number, but rather must be marking some sort of discourse status (what is of central concern). A pattern of marking third singular subjects with the 'plural' to show discourse status (rather than number) could logically result from such a reanalysis. As all other person forms overtly mark the verb, this reanalysis is possible only with third person singulars. ... From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 11 17:31:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:31:41 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: I somehow thought that was "Wabash" (and Algonquian). Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:00 AM To: Siouan List Subject: Re: Iskousogos On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if Marquette's 8AB8SKIG8 has any Siouan features. I > tend to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I > notice there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself > Wablenica, which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think that's available here. Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I think I remember someone having a different insight into it. From mckay020 at umn.edu Wed Feb 11 17:40:13 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (cantemaza) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:40:13 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Regarding wabdenica This is what iwas taught. wanbdi-eagle nica-lacks or doesn't have, is without Each tiospaye (extended family) had their own fla, some still do. If a child was orphaned, he or she was seen as not having that flag (tawapaha-ta-her/his, wa-wanbdi, pa-head, ha-skin or hide) anymore hence wanbdenica. -Cantemaza de miye. Koontz John E wrote: >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > >>I was wondering if Marquette's 8AB8SKIG8 has any Siouan features. I tend >>to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I notice >>there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself Wablenica, >>which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? >> >> > >Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. > >/waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think >it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final -ku >can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are >various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think >that's available here. > >Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a >stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly on >morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. >There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. > >The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous in >form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I think I >remember someone having a different insight into it. > >. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Feb 11 18:03:20 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:03:20 +0100 Subject: Wablenica - was: Iskousogos Message-ID: >Regarding wabdenica This is what iwas taught. wanbdi-eagle nica-lacks or doesn't have, is without Each tiospaye (extended family) had their own fla, some still do. If a child was orphaned, he or she was seen as not having that flag (tawapaha-ta-her/his, wa-wanbdi, pa-head, ha-skin or hide) anymore hence wanbdenica.<< Shouldn't we expect _wanblenica/wanbdebica_ instead of _wablenica/wabdenica-, then? Alfred From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Feb 11 18:04:42 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:04:42 -0800 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and 'Iskousogos'? Dave > I somehow thought that was "Wabash" (and Algonquian). Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:00 AM > To: Siouan List > Subject: Re: Iskousogos > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> I was wondering if Marquette's 8ab8skig8 has any Siouan features. I >> tend to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I >> notice there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself >> Wablenica, which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? > > Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. > > /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think > it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final > -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are > various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think > that's available here. > > Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a > stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly > on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. > There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. > > The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous > in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I > think I remember someone having a different insight into it. > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Feb 11 18:45:52 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:45:52 +0100 Subject: Wablenica - was: IskousogosRe: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Message-ID: >[...] Third person plural verbal marking is also used as a backgrounding device. That is, when the subject is unimportant/unspecified, third person plural verbal morphology without an overt subject NP is used [...]<< This is a pretty common feature also outside American Native tongues: 1) Italian (etc.): e.g. 'dicono' lit.: "they say" -> it is said; 'mi chiamano' lit.: "they call me" -> I'm called/my name is 2) In Hebrew, the 'unspecified' masculine 3rd pers. plural form seems to be used for exactly the same purpose (not unlike in Italian, usually translated as passive voice or - e.g. in German - as an impersonal paraphrase "man sagt/man nennt mich"). In Hebrew, there's still a very special pecularity (somehow reminding me of Dakota _-pi_: For this grammatical purpose, the 3rd p pl maskuline goes *without* the personal pronoun! E.g. _'omrim_ -> it is said, different from _hem 'omrim_ -> they (males) say. BTW, only the male plural form can be used this way (hen 'omrot -> they (fem.) say with the focus on the speakers). Alfred From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Feb 11 19:08:23 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:08:23 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: In a review of my Dorsey Chiwere vocabulary slips which I havenot looked for a decade it seems that the roll is rather scratched up. Some of it is from use and then again, there's a lot more in it than just from use. It seems like the cellulose itself has broken down, because the patterns. But that may be the original that's broken down, or the film I have here. I don't know how to tell. And I never did get through all the slips to write them down. There's lots of data online about the decay of cellulose acetate film, though it all mentions that after 1950 NAA filming was done mostly on poly-something-or-other. The NAA SIRIS catalogue lists the "Tciwere and Winnebago Folk-lore, including Iowa Cults" as being the first item on the reel that also contains the slips. I am aware that Mark, John and perhaps Bob have copies of the Dhegiha Dorsey material and OP vocabulary slips, and wonder if they found those slips to be in similar condition. I also wonder if anyone else got a copy of the Chiwere Dorsey MS, and if their section of the MicroFilm reveals a such deterioration. At this point, I wonder if I need to determine whether to order a new copy from NAA, or if the film they have on hand at the NAA is in bad shape. Any thoughts will be appreciated. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:31 AM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > Yup, typically Dorsey typed his slips, but from time to time there are > handwritten ones. And many typed slips have handwritten notations/additions, > etc. on them. I think you want everything that is there. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > I'm looking a the JOD reels as I am writing this (multi tasking, enit?). The > > majority of the ms cards with translations appear to have been typed. > > > > However, I've encountered a few ms cards with translations that have NOT > > been typed on adjoining cards. > > > > Also, I've encountered ms cards that appear to have been typed... but there > > are differences between the two. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:03:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:03:53 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <006801c3efe2$f572ba90$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I wonder if there are other instances of aspirates reducing to voiced > stops (or nasals) word- or syllable-finally? I know this happens to /p, > t, k/ --> /b, l/d, g/, but I'm a little surprised to see it with /ph/. > I'm no Dakotanist though, so I defer to you guys on these sound changes. I think the example we were discussing was anuNkha ~ anuNg 'on both sides'. Ophe(ya) ~ ob is the only other one I am sure of. It could be that such pairs can only exist where the is an historical pattern of VG+hV, i.e., where the aspirate derives from an historical C-h morpheme boundary, i.e., where both the VG and VChV forms have coexisted since Proto-Mississippi Valley. Or I suppose such a pattern in a few cases might lead to other examples by analogy. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:10:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:10:16 -0700 Subject: =ha (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi ...) In-Reply-To: <007a01c3efe4$c7bbc720$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > *a'api, and Crow has =haa added to reduced *a'ap? > > I think the status of /-haa/ was pointed out by Randy, but in any event > I defer to him in all matters Crow. As do I! I suppose a cognate =ha(a) could also explain forms like anuNg ! anuNkha 'on both sides' in Dakotan. Incidentally, the ennumerative quality of this form is quite in line with the use of =ha in Omaha-Ponca, cf. examples like pp(e)e'dhaNba=ha 'in seven places'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:27:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:27:15 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, CATCHES VIOLET wrote: > opxa means to be included, or to include one's self in going or doing > something with others, if one is going with others we can say 'ob ye' or > 'opxa' or 'opxa ic'iye'... opxa and ob mean exactly the same thing, ob > is just a short cut... I try to help you all in this way, by explaining > the Lakxota words when i can .... And I think I speak for everyone in saying that it is greatly appreciated! > BE CAREFUL. THE D DIALECT USES THE TERM A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE L > DIALECT. > FOR US IT WOULD SEEM ungrammatical to say 'opa aya' which is pure Dakxota, > to pursue for us would be 'pasi aya pi' so we would n't say 'opa aya' in > the same way, not to mean the same thing, because our dialect is more > particular about how things should be said or how words should be used. It's very useful to have your comments here on the difference between Teton and Santee usage. It's been observed that Buechel relies strongly on the Riggs dictionary, right to the wording of the entries, and it's interesting to see here that the omitted material was omitted with cause. > pi doesn't fit into the picture here at all with ob or opxa, unless we say > 'they' included themselves or 'they' went with someone 'opxa pi' or 'ob > eyayab' or 'ob iyaya pi' but we can't say 'opxa iyaya pi' > I hope all this makes sense Yes, and it draws attention to a point that I may not have made clear, which is that I am trying to explain the association of plural marking with the Dhegiha singular proximate (marked the same as plural in each Dhegiha language). So I'm trying to account for something probably that took place a thousand years or more ago. I'm not suggesting even that the current Dhegiha pattern, where plurality and subject proximity are marked homophonously, is to be accounted for in terms of this sort of comitative focus marker. It was then suggested that various comitative markers might also fit into the *api pattern, and that opha might be one of them. But this is sort of like being related through a long dead ancestor to somebody else. It doesn't necessarily get you to invited to dinner. The family feeling is gone and there's no contemporary pattern of association. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:42:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:42:15 -0700 Subject: 2 x o...phA (Re[2]: Historical Explanation for *pi ...) In-Reply-To: <8250093642.20040210214101@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Wablenica wrote: > It looks that there are (were) two "opha" verbs: o'pxa, o'wapxa, > o'uNpxapi, "to join; follow; participate" in Boas&Deloria, and opxA', > owa'pxe, uNko'pxapi, "to go by way of". What's the page number on this? I see that Buechel lists just o'pha (ouNpha=pi) 'go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. He puts a macron over this o, but doesn't write oo as in previous entries (which I assume have rearticulation). The latter might be the best fit for Dh *ophE 'to follow a path/route/trail'. It's possible that the former accounts for the Osage "o-pshe'" and "op'-she" /ophe/ forms in LaFlesche glossed 'ford', bridge', and 'pass from one group to aanother', though, naturally, there is a tendency on at least my part to stretch a point and assume these are all derivations of the same sense. There's also a Dhegiha form *oppe (or *ohpe) 'to go in; to visit'. I think this is cognate with, e.g., IO ugwa' or Wi hokewe'. The source would be something like Proto-MVS *okpe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 05:15:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:15:24 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <1076458258.40297312b3b91@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > Hey! I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural. I was looking at it without this intermediate step, of course! I think what you're saying here is that the existence of clauses like {no explicit subject} {explicit singular object} verb=PLUR which in OP come out like > ... monzhon thon wethinwin-bi > ... land the sold it- pl > '... the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) suggests that zero subject + plural verb backgrounding of the subject (and hence foregrounding of the object) can lead to singular object + plural verb implying foregrounding of the object. And, then, as Rory suggests, there is a stage at which singular anything + plural verb indicates foregrounding of the anything, leading to the present state in which plural verbs can indicate foregrounding of a singular object with unmarked subjects or of a singular subject. In the Dhegiha context singularity is reasonably detectable in the morphology, of course, with akha for subjects and dhoN/the/khe for inanimate objects and dhiNkhe/dhiN/thaN/khe for animate objects (depending on the shape logic of the object). For what it's worth, I'm inclined to suspect that the current "object/obviative" articles were the original set, and that the subject or proximate animate pair akha/ama were somehow grafted onto this later, whereas, particularly with this new approach I've suggested, I'm forced to assume that =pi as a proximate marking scheme is older. Assuming I understand the next stage of your logic, I'd have to admit that I'm not sure I see how to pick between this approach and the one I suggested. I definitely like your analysis better than my old "Nude Descending a Staircase" analysis of plural => motion => better subject. That doesn't explain the akha "singular" subjects very well, for a start. I don't know that your approach accounts for the Winnebago use of "plural" marking with first persons as well as with inclusives, but you could argue that that was a development within Winnebago, or that once it was lost elsewhere the environment for your analysis exists. My approach does require a rather peculiar sort of focus marker, for which I don't know of an exact parallel, and peculiar is never a positive factor in an argument. How would you deal with the extension to intransitives? And what about the use of the "comitative" a-plural in motion verbs as part of the proximate marking pattern for motion verbs? These must complicate the process of extending object foregrounding to subject foregrounding. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 05:43:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:43:19 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <002d01c3f0d7$91b99780$b0430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > There's lots of data online about the decay of cellulose acetate film, > though it all mentions that after 1950 NAA filming was done mostly on > poly-something-or-other. The NAA SIRIS catalogue lists the "Tciwere and > Winnebago Folk-lore, including Iowa Cults" as being the first item on the > reel that also contains the slips. Mark has pointed out to me that there is a quality difference between "black background silverbase" and "blue background diazo." The latter has a shorter shelf-life. Could that be the issue? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 05:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:58:37 -0700 Subject: Paper to PDF (on CD-R) Message-ID: Kathy Shea happened to mention that she had discovered (several years ago!) that Kinko's (or some of them) will convert a paper document to a PDF file and make CD-Rs for you. I believe the PDF is just a container for a series of scanned images. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 14:24:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:24:37 -0600 Subject: Paper to PDF (on CD-R) Message-ID: Kinko's did that for my Siouan Stammbaum and map set for the "vegeo-chronology" paper. I didn't have them put on CD's, but they made the .pdf files easily enough. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:58 PM Subject: Paper to PDF (on CD-R) > Kathy Shea happened to mention that she had discovered (several years > ago!) that Kinko's (or some of them) will convert a paper document to a > PDF file and make CD-Rs for you. I believe the PDF is just a container > for a series of scanned images. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 14:22:43 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:22:43 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: > For what it's worth, I'm inclined to suspect that the current > "object/obviative" articles were the original set, and that the subject or > proximate animate pair akha/ama were somehow grafted onto this later, > whereas, particularly with this new approach I've suggested, I'm forced to > assume that =pi as a proximate marking scheme is older. Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a second -(a)pa marker) entirely. There is little doubt that the positionals are the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons. Logically, of course, Quapaw could have been the one to lose the two rather than the other 4 gaining morphemes, but when this sort of loss occurs, it virtually always leaves traces, and I've found none. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 17:57:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:57:37 -0700 Subject: Quapaw Articles (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi) In-Reply-To: <001f01c3f173$c0cf25c0$11b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a > second -(a)pa marker) entirely. There is little doubt that the positionals are > the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons. Logically, of course, Quapaw > could have been the one to lose the two rather than the other 4 gaining > morphemes, but when this sort of loss occurs, it virtually always leaves traces, > and I've found none. I assume the parenthetical remark refers to that =ma collective plural for animate obviatives? This pattern with articles looks like it would be a major isogloss in Dhegiha dialectology. From wablenica at mail.ru Thu Feb 12 18:08:30 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:08:30 +0300 Subject: 2 x o...phA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Koontz, Thursday, February 12, 2004, 7:42:15 AM, you wrote: KJE> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Wablenica wrote: >> It looks that there are (were) two "opha" verbs: o'pxa, o'wapxa, >> o'uNpxapi, "to join; follow; participate" in Boas&Deloria, and opxA', >> owa'pxe, uNko'pxapi, "to go by way of". KJE> What's the page number on this? I see that Buechel lists just o'pha KJE> (ouNpha=pi) 'go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. He puts a KJE> macron over this o, but doesn't write oo as in previous entries (which I KJE> assume have rearticulation). (Boas & Deloria "Dakota Grammar") Page 79. 80. Stems with two initial vowels. ... Locative prefixes are often contracted, either among themselves or with other elements. In these cases the accent is on the first syllable and the verbs are treated like those with uncontracted prefixes. i'phi to be satisfied with food, i'uNphi; ... o'pha he joins, takes part in, o'uNpha(1) ... --------- 1 But opha' to go by way of, uNko'pha. ---------------------------------------------------- Page 32. The following also behave irregularly [as regards ablaut - C.C.] Variable: yu'ta to eat; opha' to go by way of Invariable: ayu'ta to look at; o'pha to take part in, to join a group -- Best regards, Constantine Chmielnicki mailto:wablenica at mail.ru From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 18:35:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:35:30 -0600 Subject: Quapaw Articles (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi) Message-ID: > Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a > second -(a)pa marker) entirely. There is little doubt that the > positionals are the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons. > Logically, of course, Quapaw could have been the one to lose the two > rather than the other 4 gaining morphemes, but when this sort of loss > occurs, it virtually always leaves traces, and I've found none. > I assume the parenthetical remark refers to that =ma collective plural for animate obviatives? Right! This pattern with articles looks like it would be a major isogloss in Dhegiha dialectology. THE major one, I'd guess. Nother paper I should write. Bob From STrechter at csuchico.edu Thu Feb 12 19:14:09 2004 From: STrechter at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:14:09 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: My email has been out for two days or I'd have posted on this earlier. I agree with Ardis' account, and a couple of years ago presented a paper in Santa Barbara WAIL showing the grammaticalization of /pi/ maybe from that verb meaning 'to accompany' into the different paths of a what John Koontz and others are calling a 'proximate' marker, and the plural in MissVS. There are nice transition examples of this in Lakhota texts collected by Deloria where -pi is used on the verb, but the main actor in the sentence is singular. Deloria points out in a note that for instance if a lot of people arrived or came together, then sometimes only the most prominent person would be mentioned. I think that the nominalizer function comes later. Here are Lakhota examples and Deloria's comments. Forgive the enclosure....it captures the font. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Value o2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: The Value o2.doc URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 21:13:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:13:18 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: Hi Sara, What font are you using for this handout? There are some glitches in my copy and it is displaying in New Times Roman. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Trechter, Sara [mailto:STrechter at csuchico.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:14 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer My email has been out for two days or I'd have posted on this earlier. I agree with Ardis' account, and a couple of years ago presented a paper in Santa Barbara WAIL showing the grammaticalization of /pi/ maybe from that verb meaning 'to accompany' into the different paths of a what John Koontz and others are calling a 'proximate' marker, and the plural in MissVS. There are nice transition examples of this in Lakhota texts collected by Deloria where -pi is used on the verb, but the main actor in the sentence is singular. Deloria points out in a note that for instance if a lot of people arrived or came together, then sometimes only the most prominent person would be mentioned. I think that the nominalizer function comes later. Here are Lakhota examples and Deloria's comments. Forgive the enclosure....it captures the font. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 21:37:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:37:10 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: All: I'm co-teaching a seminar in "ergativity" (including a consideration of active/stative languages) this semester. The concept of "syntactic ergativity" refers, among other things, to the fact that in, e.g., some Australian languages, you can't have transitive and intransitive verbs in the same sentence with coreferential subjects without using an antipassive. So "father saw mother and (X) returned" causes problems because 'father' is a transitive subject but the subject of 'returned' is intransitive. So the speaker is forced to make 'see' into an intransitive construction so that the case functions of the subject(s) will match. They manage to do this, but my question relates to Siouan languages. I assume that Siouan languages are not "syntactically sensitive" to the active/stative distinction in sentences with two fully conjugated verbs. In other words, I have been assuming that you can have such sentences as "The boy chased the deer and was very tired." 'Chase' is active (and transitive), while 'be tired' is stative and intransitive. Does anyone know if there are restrictions on this kind of sentence? Since each verb typically has its own pronominal prefixes, I wouldn't expect restrictions. But in my own study of Kaw, I didn't have the presence of mind to check. So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can you have something like: 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) And, then, in the sentence: 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? Bob From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Feb 12 22:15:29 2004 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:15:29 -0800 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can >you have something like: > >1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > >And, then, in the sentence: > >2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > >Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean >"the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it >mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or >would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > >These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? > >Bob > > In Nakoda, my consultant would not allow the object of the first clause to be the subject of the second, regardless of the verb class. So sentences like (2) are never ambiguous to her. The only way you could get that the deer was tired was to put in an emphatic pronoun, a big pause and the consideration that the deer was old information. Even then she didn't overly like the construction. Even sentences like "The man insulted the woman and then (x) sulked" always read that the subject of the first clause was the subject of the second. It helped motivate my argument that there is a VP in Nakoda. Shannon From STrechter at csuchico.edu Thu Feb 12 22:16:20 2004 From: STrechter at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:16:20 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: sildoulos IPA 93, for the Lakhota transcription. sara Hi Sara, What font are you using for this handout? There are some glitches in my copy and it is displaying in New Times Roman. Bob From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Feb 12 22:46:40 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:40 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No connection. Iskousogos was one question. And 8AB8SKIG8 is another word. And, no, 8AB8SKIG8 and Wabash are not related. Michael On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, David Costa wrote: > Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what > connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and > 'Iskousogos'? > > Dave > > > > > I somehow thought that was "Wabash" (and Algonquian). Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:00 AM > > To: Siouan List > > Subject: Re: Iskousogos > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > >> I was wondering if Marquette's 8ab8skig8 has any Siouan features. I > >> tend to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I > >> notice there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself > >> Wablenica, which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? > > > > Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. > > > > /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think > > it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final > > -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are > > various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think > > that's available here. > > > > Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a > > stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly > > on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. > > There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. > > > > The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous > > in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I > > think I remember someone having a different insight into it. > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 23:47:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:47:01 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? I think David Rood and Geraldine Legendre did a paper relevant to this in Dakota, and that this paper has been published. It may be listed at John Boyle's bibliography site (or othewise discovereable on the web). From wablenica at mail.ru Fri Feb 13 04:46:38 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:46:38 +0300 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Dear Professor Rankin: Attached is a sample from Bushotter Texts with watukha(pi) examples. I couldn't found the exact match for your first pattern (S1-stative_verb and A1-active_verb), but the found examples are: 1. wa-ma-tukha tkha "...." echaNmiN na ... was^kaN I was tired but "...." I thought and I acted. 2. tona watukhapi chaNna asnikiyapi naiNsh khohaN tona watukha-akisnipi kiN hena iNs^ehaN lowaNpi when some were tired [stative], they rested [active] or meantime some fatigue-retired [stative] and those instead sang [active]. Friday, February 13, 2004, 12:37:10 AM, you wrote: RRL> 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. --I haven't time to look for these, but afaik some linguist with a Swedish name got PhD at C.U. for "switch-reference" research, according to him, iirc, "...na watukha" would mean "..and boy was tired", and "...cha watukha" would mean ".. dear was tired". Besides, I recall Van Valin elicited a sentence like Wichas^a waN matho waN waNyaNkiN na kte Wichas^a waN matho waN waNyaNka cha kte --with Agens being "wichas^a" and "matho" resp. who killed another one. P.S. An article mentioned by John is: On the interaction of grammar components in Lakhota: Evidence from split intransitivity G.Legendre and David S. Rood Berkeley Linguistic Society 18 (1992) If you wish, I can send you the OCRed text (with several OCR typos) -- Best regards, Constantine Chmielnicki mailto:wablenica at mail.ru -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Watukha.txt URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 13 16:24:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:24:24 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: Yes, I wrote to David off-list just before he left for Vienna and he says he didn't think they went into "syntactic activeness" (if it exists), since each verb comes with its own set of pronominals that help clarify relations. Thanks for the ref though. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:47 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers > here? I think David Rood and Geraldine Legendre did a paper relevant to this in Dakota, and that this paper has been published. It may be listed at John Boyle's bibliography site (or othewise discovereable on the web). From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 13 17:46:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:46:21 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: I think there's some confusion here over what, exactly, we're talking about. That, or I'm dyslexic. My comment was about the river name 8abachkig8, which is found in one or another form on numerous early French maps of the Ohio Valley, sometimes as the name of the Ohio, sometimes distinguished from it. Surely it is "Wabash" -- I certainly haven't any other explanation for it. I was thinking that Iskousogos was supposed to be the most westerly of the names in someones inventory or map -- thus the possible comparisons with Wabash. > No connection. Iskousogos was one question. And 8AB8SKIG8 is another word. > And, no, 8AB8SKIG8 and Wabash are not related. Michael > Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what > connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and > 'Iskousogos'? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 13 19:56:53 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:56:53 -0600 Subject: Active/stative verbs again. Message-ID: My thanks to those who have responded with comment and examples, both on- and off-list. It looks as though there are no constraints on biclausal sentences with coreferential subjects and one active and one stative verb. Disambiguation of such sentences with 3sg. subjects and 3sg. objects, however, presents interesting problems. Shannon's Nakoda speakers require the same subject for both verbs -- the object of the first cannot be the subject of the second without an overt noun apparently. Other dialects may be different: Constantine Chmielnicki reminds me that Van Valin and Richard Lungstrum have separately posited that the use of "conjunctions" or "switch reference" markers, /cha/ and /na/ may be used by Lakota speakers to eliminate confusion. I haven't yet had a chance to look at these sources. I suspect that this may well be true quite generally with the languages that have S/R morphology. These would presumably include Crow, Hidatsa, Mandan and Biloxi. I have Randy's dissertation and MA thesis and will be checking further. I suspect that the same goal would be accomplished using proximate/obviative morphology in Dhegiha dialects. This too is hypothetical at the moment, since a preliminary search of Dorsey's 1890 text collection hasn't yet revealed any applicable instances. No doubt there are some, but my search technique so far is somewhat primitive. The disambiguation problem doesn't seem usually to bear on the active/stative question though. It seems that some more investigation across Siouan would be useful on this/these topics though. Any further data or comments would be most welcome. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Feb 13 22:24:01 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:24:01 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: Bob wrote: > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can > you have something like: > > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > And, then, in the sentence: > > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? I'm not sure this question can even be answered for OP. One of our long-standing frustrations in learning and teaching this language is that they just don't seem to have words that equate to our "and" and "or". Lakhota does, but OP doesn't. To put these sentences into modern Omaha, you'd probably just replace the "and" with a comma. At that point, of course, you just have two separate, short sentences. For what it's worth, I tried testing my Omaha translation of these two sentences with our speakers. Both were accepted. > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) AnoN'hegamaz^i, oNwoN'z^edha. I ran like mad; I'm tired. > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. Nu'z^iNga akha' ta'xti dhix^a', uz^e'dha. Boy the deer chased, he's tired. I asked who was tired in the second sentence, and it seemed obvious to the speakers that it was the boy. When I asked how to say "The boy chased the deer so the deer was tired", the arthritic elder speaker rejected the idea on grounds that "Deers don't get tired. They just go running and jumping all over the place." At this point, Mark drove them away. Maybe I can pick this up with them again later. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 02:48:43 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:48:43 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm not sure this question can even be answered for OP. One of > our long-standing frustrations in learning and teaching this > language is that they just don't seem to have words that equate > to our "and" and "or". Lakhota does, but OP doesn't. To put > these sentences into modern Omaha, you'd probably just replace > the "and" with a comma. At that point, of course, you just have > two separate, short sentences. It is difficult to find conjunction of noun phrases even in the Dorsey texts, though there are a few strategies for doing this. But between clauses I'd guess this would be where egaN comes in. "Having run very fast, the boy is tired." "Having chased the deer, the boy was tired." However, these are Dorsey's learned glosses. I have no idea how you elicit this structure using modern colloquial English. Maybe "having" works, though I'd be surprised. Maybe "and then" or "so" or "because"? Probably this sort of conjunct formation arises most naturally in connected text. > I asked who was tired in the second sentence, and it seemed > obvious to the speakers that it was the boy. When I asked > how to say "The boy chased the deer so the deer was tired", > the arthritic elder speaker rejected the idea on grounds that > "Deers don't get tired. They just go running and jumping all > over the place." This is the kind of problem I experienced with respect to "establishing a plausible environment." Deer do get tired, but not being chased on foot by human beings. Omaha speakers seem not to be very happy with implausible examples. They definitely don't draw a line between ungrammatical and implausible. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 02:46:35 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:46:35 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: Rory wrote: > So the basic conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb > ending in -e seems to work as follows: > > bi'ze 'dry' > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' wabi'za 'they are dry' I beat this into the ground with the speakers on Monday, and it seems the above paradigm needs to be corrected: bi'ze 'dry' oNbi'ze 'I am dry' dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' bi'ze 's/he is dry' (Obv.) bi'za 'they are dry' bi'za 's/he is dry' (Prox.) Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural in stative verbs. I hadn't realized that before. Also, the proximate/obviative distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the statives. We've even found some contextual examples that help make that distinction a little clearer to me. Alberta, as a little girl, is helping her father in the barn. She stoops to lift up a horse harness for him. He is afraid she will hurt herself, and warns her: Udhu'doNba ga!-- Ski'ge! Watch out!-- It's heavy! Here, the father's focus is on his daughter, and the harness is simply a factor she must deal with. But if he were actually discoursing upon the harness itself, he would say: S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga. Horse-harness the it's heavy. The horse harness is heavy. The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. The speakers spontaneously gave me two sentences using the word for 'deep' (s^ku'be): Ni' akha' s^ku'ba. Ma' akha' s^ku'ba. Water the it's deep. Snow the it's deep. The water is deep. The snow is deep. Here, the focus is presumably on the water or the snow, which both take the proximate article akha' as well as proximate marking on the verb. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 03:10:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:10:02 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Rory wrote: > bi'ze 'dry' > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' (Obv.) bi'za 'they are dry' > bi'za 's/he is dry' (Prox.) It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive. I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both? I'd expect the first or last. > Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural > in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural > in stative verbs. I hadn't realized that before. Initially I went down the same path myself. However, there just don't seem to be any examples of wa- as a P3 plural for statives. In short, it's an object only form. > I hadn't realized that before. Also, the proximate/obviative > distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the > statives. ... I'm relieved to hear that, though it might have been nice to have a way of distinguishing stative and "experiencer subject" verbs from each other easily. Great examples of its use, by the way. > The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. The horse harness example also applies. I still don't feel particularly close to understanding the articles ... They remind me of Russian motion verbs. They make perfect sense as each example is explained to me. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 04:33:51 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:33:51 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: John wrote: > Well, certainly not in regard to "proximate" marking and maybe wa plurals > for the third person! Do you or Ardis have a better term for his? It > really is something like conceptual proximacy or nearness or centrality in > some sense, in Ardis's analysus, I think, but it's not really Agonnquian > proximate/obviative marking. Well, I don't know enough Algonquian to find the terms objectionable! I'm still wrestling with the concept itself, though I think I'm getting closer to understanding how it works. "Focus", as distinct from grammatical subject, is perhaps what it is about. If you and Ardis are comfortable with the terms, so am I. > My point then is that experiencer verbs are not statives, though from a > purely morphological point of view, they do mostly have just one patient > inflection and are easily confused with statives, especially when it is > not not always obvious from an English perspective that there is a second > argument, as in the case of 'sick' or 'brave' or 'holy'. [...] Here, I'm going to argue a little. It seems that you are taking verbs from three different grammatical classes, combining them into one which you call "experiencer verbs", and holding them as exclusive of stative verbs. My understanding of "stative verbs" has always been that they are a set of words approximately equivalent to English adjectives, except that they conjugate as verbs, using the object, or patient, pronouns only. This would be a functional/morphological class. By that definition, dhiNge' would be a stative, albeit a bit unusual in intrinsically referencing a non-existent 3rd person object in addition to an optional patient subject. This is just a nuance of the allowed argument list of the verb, much as 'give' differs from 'steal' in English. The fact that some verbs use wa- prefixes and have animate subjects shouldn't disqualify them from being statives. Datives like git?e' on the other hand would be another class entirely. Why can't we have stative verbs as a morpho-syntactic class, have experiencer verbs as a semantic class, and expect that the two classes may partially overlap? > I think wakhe'ga is pretty much along these lines, but the body part that > is the source of the illness is represented by wa-. I doubt you can say > anything like 'I am sick to my stomach' with this verb, along the lines of > *ni'gha ankhe'ga, though I've never asked. [...] > > Anyway, I think that all the rather large class of wa-prefixed "statives" > are probably actually experiencer verbs. Some may allow replacing wa with > a noun, or even supplementing it. I think this argument depends on what we believe that wa- primordially represents. Your view seems to be that it is originally a patient marker. Hence, a verb marked with wa- must have that wa- pointing to a noun somewhere, even if it is hard to tell what that noun could be. The view I posted during the great wa- discussion of a few weeks ago was that wa- was originally a generalizer, and only secondarily and in certain circumstances came to function as the patient marker for 'us' and 'them'. In other circumstances, wa- became a noun head, or continued as a generalizer. I think the wakhe'ga class of verbs exemplifies the generalization function of wa-. These verbs seem to be a class of statives in which the wa- makes the attribute a permanent feature of a person rather than simply a time-neutral condition. Although most of the terms I gave in my basic list of wa- statives probably do not allow decomposition into wa- + stative verb today, it does seem to be the case that wa- can be added fairly freely to many unquestionably stative verbs, and the conjugation follows the expected (stative type) wa- paradigm. Examples the speakers approved included: ski'ge heavy (objective description) oNski'ge I am heavy. dhiski'ge Thou art heavy. waski'ge We are heavy. waski'ge heavy (person is stout) oNwoN'skige I am heavy. wadhi'skige Thou art heavy. wawa'skige We are heavy. My feeling is that prefixed wa- is to statives about what postfixed -s^toN is to active verbs in the sense of indicating characteristic as opposed to specific. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: OP stative verb ablaut? owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 02/08/2004 06:56 PM Please respond to siouan On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks, John. I gather we don't really have the stative verb system > very well worked out yet for OP. Well, certainly not in regard to "proximate" marking and maybe wa plurals for the third person! Do you or Ardis have a better term for his? It really is something like conceptual proximacy or nearness or centrality in some sense, in Ardis's analysus, I think, but it's not really Agonnquian proximate/obviative marking. > The examples you have given are from Dorsey, and all are third person. > The grammar for modern Omaha may have changed a bit, and we're looking > for personal inflections here to build a conjugation paradigm. You may > be right that ablaut may have to do more with proximate-obviative issues > than with plurality; we need to pursue that angle more. I think we definitely need to establish what article sets work with the third person subjects in question. Maybe things work different for animates and inanimates? That's a fairly common Siouan pattern. It might not hurt to do a little context building in the elicitation, too, if that's not happening. I came to the conclusion - after my limited fieldwork, unfortunately - that that might alleviate some of the problems I was having with contexts. People often reacted to my examples by explaining that "people wouldn't say that." This would be a response to something like "I am tall" that seems perfectly natural in English, albeit even non-linguists are probably trained to a fairly high standard of tolerance decontextualization of academic languages like English by the educational system. The problem with "I am tall," by the way, was that it sounded like bragging. An ideal approach to contextualizaiton would be to work from a text offered by the speaker(s), but it might be possible to use arbitary scenarioes. Something like: "My brother got caught in the rain. He was really wet. He came home and dried off. Now he's dry. If he were talking to me he'd say "I'm dry." His friends were with him. Now they're dry." That sort of thing. > Some verbs may apply only to inanimate objects, such as 'shallow' and > 'deep' for water. Unfortunately, that seems to be true of a lot of statives. > Others may apply only to animate beings. Perhaps these are what you are > referring to as 'experiencer verbs'; I'm not sure what all is included > in this class. We've talked about these in the past. I think these are a difficult category to get hold of for Siouanists. I may be totally off track with them myself. They usually do have animate subjects. The subject governs patient or dative patient concord. However, there is a second noun in the frame, a theme I think it is sometimes called, the thing through which or by virtue of which the experiencer experiences the experience (sorry about that). A good example with a plain patient is - I believe - dhiNge' 'to lack, not to have'. The pattern is P1 aNdhiN'ge, P2 dhidhiN'ge, P12 wadhiN'ge, but this is clearly not a stative verb. There is an additonal element, the thing lacked. The thing lacked is the theme - if we can use that word. Is there a better oword? I suspect that in OP this thing lacked has to be a third person - that it would be unnatural or even impossible to lack a first, second, or inclusive person. Some form of periphrasis would be needed to address the concept. I have certainly never seen any examples like 'I don't have you'. A good example with dative patient concord seems to be git?e' 'for one's relative to be dead'. The kinship relation who has died is the theme. The inflectional pattern is P1 iNt?e', P2 dhit?e, P12 wet?e. Again, I don't think I've sen any examples like 'you are dead to me', though these a perhaps a bit more plausible, at least to anyone with with a Western, or at rather, European outlook. I think wakhe'ga is pretty much along these lines, but the body part that is the source of the illness is represented by wa-. I doubt you can say anything like 'I am sick to my stomach' with this verb, along the lines of *ni'gha ankhe'ga, though I've never asked. I think tha for this sort of hting you have to substitute ni(y)e 'to pain one', cf., ni'gha ni'e 'stomach ache'. This is also an experiencer, verb pattern, I believe, though the texts seem to have the experiencer pattern ni'gha i'nie, e.g. ni'gha aNdhaNnie 'my stomach pains me', and I'm not sure what the odds are between i'nie and nie. Anyway, I think that all the rather large class of wa-prefixed "statives" are probably actually experiencer verbs. Some may allow replacing wa with a noun, or even supplementing it. My point then is that experiencer verbs are not statives, though from a purely morphological point of view, they do mostly have just one patient inflection and are easily confused with statives, especially when it is not not always obvious from an English perspective that there is a second argument, as in the case of 'sick' or 'brave' or 'holy'. Nevertheless, I think that that in leaving experiencer verbs out of consideration we are making a serious error and one that will trip us up in various ways. For example, it would be extremely likely that experiencer verbs and statives would take proximate and plural marking in rather different ways. For one thing, there is another noun in the frame, and this might govern the plural/proximate marker or even a wa-prefix. For another, experiencer verbs do seem mostly to take animate "experiencer subjects" and animacy may also be relevant. (Here, in the interest of brevity, I've omitted the part of Rory's letter that lists specific wa-verbs that I suspect are experiencer verbs.) > We have been having a little trouble with the wa- ('us' & 'them') > forms on some of our verbs, as you intimate. Some words, like > toN'ga and s^toN'ga, are accepted readily in all forms including > the wa-. Others seem to be acceptable with wa- only when the > verb is preceeded by some other pronoun like woN'oNgidhe, > woN'oNdoN, or s^e'ama. The words z^iN'ga, s^u'ga, bdhe'ka, gdhe'ze, > gdhe'z^e, da', sagi' and nu'ka seem to fall into this category. > My example of bi'ze now seems to have been particularly ill-chosen, > as one of our speakers now seems to find wabi'ze/a unacceptable > under any circumstance. These all seem to me likely to be stative. The only thing I can think of is that some of the forms with wa- are effectively nominalizations, and the forms like s^e'=ama wabdhe'kka amount to 'these are thin things', whereas wabdhe'kka alone is just 'thing thing', and doens't make a good predication. > Yet another interesting kink is that our speakers sometimes > shift the accent to the last syllable of some multi-syllable > stative verbs normally accented on the first syllable. Mark and > I were told in our session on Friday that this is how one gives > a comparative in Omaha: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' Interesting. It may not be a comparative in the strict sense, but it does seem like some sort of focus-based accentual shift. > If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. > > oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' > oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' > > However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in > place of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: > > gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' > woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' > > Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite > probable that I'm are confused on some things. Any further > suggestions or comments on this would be very welcome! I wonder if some of the accented vowels are just long (...a=i > a:). This is one of the contexts where I used to think maybe there was length. It would be interesting to know what the pitch contours over these forms are. I suspect one of the things that trips people up in listening for accent is associating it with length (which is more or less an appropriate cue in English). From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 04:51:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:51:13 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: > It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive. > I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both? I'd expect > the first or last. It definitely can be "you and me"-- that's the way I framed it to the speakers. I put it up to the list as "we two" because I've also been wondering whether it can also mean "me and him". I suspect so, but haven't tried to pin that down with them yet. Rory From napshawin at msn.com Sat Feb 14 11:52:32 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:52:32 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: John, Thats interesting! In Lakxota when we use -wa- to talk about things, its usually plural, because when we talk about a thing we use the name of the thing and use wan. Wa is used for waspanyan a feast (wa-means the many/much different foods) but, agxuyapi wan hel wate. Violet >From: Koontz John E >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: OP stative verb ablaut? >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:10:02 -0700 (MST) > > > Rory wrote: > > bi'ze 'dry' > > > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' (Obv.) bi'za 'they are dry' > > bi'za 's/he is dry' (Prox.) > >It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive. >I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both? I'd expect >the first or last. > > > Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural > > in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural > > in stative verbs. I hadn't realized that before. > >Initially I went down the same path myself. However, there just don't >seem to be any examples of wa- as a P3 plural for statives. In short, >it's an object only form. > > > I hadn't realized that before. Also, the proximate/obviative > > distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the > > statives. ... > >I'm relieved to hear that, though it might have been nice to have a way of >distinguishing stative and "experiencer subject" verbs from each other >easily. Great examples of its use, by the way. > > > The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. > >The horse harness example also applies. I still don't feel particularly >close to understanding the articles ... They remind me of Russian motion >verbs. They make perfect sense as each example is explained to me. > _________________________________________________________________ Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/ From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Feb 14 13:56:05 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:56:05 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DE1@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Sorry for the confusion, Bob. The hydronym <8AB8SKIG8> that Marquette recorded during the Mississippi voyage of 1673, which refers, as Marquette says in the narration of the voyage, to the Ohio River as we know it today, is not related to "Wabash". Unfortunately, the meaning of <8AB8SKIG8 was lost since Marquette died before he could explain it. But when the place name made it back to Quebec/France/civilization, it was tranliterated, incorrectly, to "Ouabouskigou". Historians, at least beginning with Thwaites have thought that Marquette's place name is related to Miami-Illinois /waapaah$iiki/, the name of the Wabash River. However, except for the initial, /waap-/, written 8AB- by the explorer and Ouab-/Wab- in French and English forms of the Miami-Illinois name for the Wabash, these two names are not phonologically related. "You can't get there from here," as they say. Moreover, /waapaah$iiki (siipiiwi)/ 'it-shines-white river' referred to a waterway that brackets today's Wabash River + the distal end of the Ohio River, below the confluence of today's Wabash and Ohio. In other words, the Old Wabash was a tributary of the Mississippi, and the Ohio a tributary of the Old Wabash. So, not only do the two terms not mean the same thing, they describe two different rivers. I hope this clears up the confusion. I'm writing a paper about all this and hope to put this false equation back into Pandora's box. But darn if them cross winds ain't something. Ok. Back to All Things Siouan. Best, Michael On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > I think there's some confusion here over what, exactly, we're talking > about. That, or I'm dyslexic. My comment was about the river name > 8abachkig8, which is found in one or another form on numerous early > French maps of the Ohio Valley, sometimes as the name of the Ohio, > sometimes distinguished from it. Surely it is "Wabash" -- I certainly > haven't any other explanation for it. I was thinking that Iskousogos > was supposed to be the most westerly of the names in someones inventory > or map -- thus the possible comparisons with Wabash. > > > No connection. Iskousogos was one question. And 8AB8SKIG8 is another > word. > > > And, no, 8AB8SKIG8 and Wabash are not related. > > Michael > > > Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what > > connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and > > 'Iskousogos'? > > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 15:39:47 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: That's great, Rory -- thanks! I was wondering if both verbs might use -(b)i if the subjects were the same but only one might use -(b)i otherwise, but it's probably not that easy. As for "deers don't get tired", I should have forseen that from my time in the field and made the object of the first clause "his brother". My mistake. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. > Bob wrote: > > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can > > you have something like: > > > > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > > > And, then, in the sentence: > > > > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > > > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > I'm not sure this question can even be answered for OP. One of > our long-standing frustrations in learning and teaching this > language is that they just don't seem to have words that equate > to our "and" and "or". Lakhota does, but OP doesn't. To put > these sentences into modern Omaha, you'd probably just replace > the "and" with a comma. At that point, of course, you just have > two separate, short sentences. > > For what it's worth, I tried testing my Omaha translation of > these two sentences with our speakers. Both were accepted. > > > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > AnoN'hegamaz^i, oNwoN'z^edha. > I ran like mad; I'm tired. > > > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > Nu'z^iNga akha' ta'xti dhix^a', uz^e'dha. > Boy the deer chased, he's tired. > > I asked who was tired in the second sentence, and it seemed > obvious to the speakers that it was the boy. When I asked > how to say "The boy chased the deer so the deer was tired", > the arthritic elder speaker rejected the idea on grounds that > "Deers don't get tired. They just go running and jumping all > over the place." > > At this point, Mark drove them away. Maybe I can pick this > up with them again later. > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 15:50:22 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:50:22 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: These are all really interesting paradigms (bize 'be dry') and it's nice to have the examples so clearly presented. I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a flexible concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside. It would be interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns. 'Wind, water', and 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may qualify for -akha on that basis. On the other hand, animacy may not be involved at all. This is a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way too. Bob > The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. > The speakers spontaneously gave me two sentences using the > word for 'deep' (s^ku'be): > > Ni' akha' s^ku'ba. Ma' akha' s^ku'ba. > Water the it's deep. Snow the it's deep. > The water is deep. The snow is deep. From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 15:58:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:58:49 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: In a paper on "Time and tense (not!) in Quapaw" I did at the Typology Centre "down under", I used 'having' as the translation, since egaN seems to be the cognate of Dakotan k?uN (as we've said before) and contains the frozen auxiliary 'do, done'. So {VERB-x} egaN, {VERB-y} is 'X done, Y happens/happened'. I've been assuming that it sequences events/states temporally, egaN signalling anteriority. I guess this doesn't really add much to the discussion though. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > It is difficult to find conjunction of noun phrases even in the Dorsey > texts, though there are a few strategies for doing this. But between > clauses I'd guess this would be where egaN comes in. "Having run very > fast, the boy is tired." "Having chased the deer, the boy was tired." > However, these are Dorsey's learned glosses. I have no idea how you > elicit this structure using modern colloquial English. Maybe "having" > works, though I'd be surprised. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 19:22:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:22:52 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Unfortunately, the meaning of <8AB8SKIG8 was lost since Marquette died > before he could explain it. But when the place name made it back > to Quebec/France/civilization, it was tranliterated, incorrectly, to > "Ouabouskigou". Historians, at least beginning with Thwaites have thought > that Marquette's place name is related to Miami-Illinois /waapaah$iiki/, > the name of the Wabash River. And the crosswinds whip up again! Without in any way wishing to quibble with your etymologies, I would be grateful to know why 8ab8skig8 would be incorrectly transliterated ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? Puzzled in Sioux City (metaphorically speaking). From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 19:49:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:49:46 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: > Without in any way wishing to quibble with your etymologies, I would be > grateful to know why 8ab8skig8 would be incorrectly transliterated > ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought > that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? The use of <8> for is very old. It predates invention of the Cyrillic alphabet. It was formed with the Greek letters upsilon written on top of o-micron after Greek upsilon fronted and the earlier diphthong [ou] raised to [u]. The Cyrillic use of the letter Y for /u/ is a graphic variant of earlier Greek <8> (with the top open, of course). I don't know how long it's been in use in the West. French, of course, underwent the parallel sound change, with Latin /u:/ fronting to u-umlaut and Latin /o:/ > ou > u afterward. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 21:41:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:41:13 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: <001401c3f333$c5a8c6c0$19b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > The Cyrillic use of the letter Y for /u/ is a graphic variant of earlier > Greek <8> (with the top open, of course). I suppose that makes sense. I'd always assumed it was based on capital upsilon, which is Y-shaped. But probably the miniscules were in use by the time Cyrillic was developed. Actually, psilon is the nominative neuter singular of psilo's 'plain, unornamented, unadorned, prosaic, treeless, without armor', a familiar concatenation of ideas, and upsilon and epsilon are "plain u" and "plain e." I had thought this was in opposition to ou and ei, but when I looked up psilon I also checked the letter articles and it appears that epsilon is plainer than the newfangled eta and upsilon means vocalic u as opposed to w. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Feb 14 22:05:00 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:05:00 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I had thought this was in > opposition to ou and ei, but when I looked up psilon I also checked the > letter articles and it appears that epsilon is plainer than the newfangled > eta and upsilon means vocalic u as opposed to w. And postclassical Greek pronunciation evolved pretty radically. In modern Greek, e.g., i, ei, E (eta), oi, u (upsilon), ui are [i] e (epsilon), ai are [E] (eh) ou is [u] au is [af], [av] eu is [Ef], [Ev] Eu is [if], [iv] not to mention the consonants. Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 23:17:40 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:17:40 -0600 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? Message-ID: I'd like to run my dubious knowledge of the stop series by the comparativists to make sure I'm on the right track phonology-wise on my thesis. Please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong here. MVS had [p], [t] and [k], as well as [h] and glottal stop [?]. [h] could combine with the three oral stops on either side; [?] could immediately follow them (but never precede them?). Thus, we have four series of stops: [p] [t] [k] [hp] [ht] [hk] [ph] [th] [kh] [p?] [t?] [k?] We also have double stop clusters, like [pt] and [kt], which have been reduced to single stops outside of Dakotan. (Do all six possible combinations occur?) In Dhegihan, the stop retained is normally the second of the two; thus [pt] and [kt] both become [tt]. This stop is normally held long, or tense. In Dakotan, the pre-aspirates [hp], [ht] and [hk] merge with the corresponding post-aspirates [ph], [th] and [kh]. (Right for which is pre- and which is post- ?) In OP, the [hp], [ht] and [hk] drop the [h] and have the stop held long and tense: [pp], [tt] and [kk]. In addition, the plain stops [p], [t] and [k] are voiced to help distinguish them from the tense series, becoming [b], [d] and [g]. In OP, the original glottal stop [?] is lost, and [k?] => [?], a new glottal stop set. [t?] and [p?] are retained. Thanks! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 23:30:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:30:27 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <003301c3f313$825ae8f0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > In a paper on "Time and tense (not!) in Quapaw" I did at the Typology > Centre "down under", I used 'having' as the translation, since egaN > seems to be the cognate of Dakotan k?uN (as we've said before) and > contains the frozen auxiliary 'do, done'. So {VERB-x} egaN, {VERB-y} is > 'X done, Y happens/happened'. I've been assuming that it sequences > events/states temporally, egaN signalling anteriority. I guess this > doesn't really add much to the discussion though. I like "having", I just think it might be a little learned or written. In actual speech I'd probably use something else myself. So I'm think it might be difficult to elicit egaN constructionswith "having" examples, htough it might not be. They match up pretty well. I found this example in Dorsey 90:375.1-2: Dhe'=dhiNkhe NudaN'agha uga's^aN hi' e'=de this one N. travelling he has arrived there "but" i'dhiNge t?e gdhi. tired dying he has has arrived back here. The "but" is, I think, essentially a cleft or relative in e with =de 'unexpected' attached to it. So, the whole is something like "This NudaN'agha is someone who managed to reach his goal and has returned all worn out." Maybe are more literal match would be "This N. who reached his goal has returned worn out." (In this case a relieved father is reporting the safe return of his son from a not very successful first war party.) A similar example in Dorsey 91:61.13-14 ma'dhe gdhe'baN naN'ba kki edi s^a'ppe winter ten two when there six s^ethaN' wadhi'tttaN=i e'=de, iN'thaN uz^edha=i so far they have worked "but" now they are tired e=bdh=e'gaN. I think They (are ones who) have managed to hold onto their offices for 26 years and I think they should be ready to move on by now. Unfortunately, in thesese examples, although i'dhiNge 'be tired' looks to be an experiencer verb, it's hard to be sure of the mix of verbs, or they are simply both transitive. Examples with egaN: Dorsey 90:454.19 uwa'z^edha=i e'gaN, nikkas^iNga aN'guxdha=b=az^i=i. w(a)-aNg-uxdha-b(i)-az^i-i we were tired as men we did not overtake them This is clearly we-experiencer, we-active. No gapping, of course. Dorsey 90:455.1 naNppe=awahiN=i e'gaN, uwa'z^edha=i, aN'guxdha=b=az^i we were hungry as we were tired we did not overtake them This is we-stative (or experiencer), we-experiencer, we-transitive. However, it's not clear that the last clauses is not something analogous to a "comma splice." We have Dorsey's assessment of this as a single sentence, but it may not be. We might suspect that uz^e'dha 'be tired, be weary' is an experiencer verb with the hint of the "stative" inflection plus the semantics and that locative u - in what? - but fortunately we have confirmation from these clauses: Dorsey 90:581.2 GaN' waz^iN'ga=ama bdhu'ga=xti a'hiN uz^e'dha=bi egaN', ... and so birds the all very wing they were tired as And as all the birds were wing-weary (or had tired wings), ... Dorsey 90:592.14 Is^ta'ha=khe uz^e'dha=bi egaN', eyelids the they were weary as Dorsey 90:70.5 hi' aNwaN'z^edha agdhiN' ha legs I was tired I sat u-aN-z^edha The next example is a bit different, in that the nominal patient is not a body part. Dorsey 91:61.3 wadhi'ttaN=the aNwaN'z^edha he'ga= m=az^i work the I am tired little I NEG I am rather (or not a little) tired of the work Note that the accompanying nominal patient has the standard inanimate articles when definite, and that the verb does not agree with it, unless we allow for a "zero" 3rd person marking. The experiencer is either zero third person (possibly plural and governing bi) or, in two of the examples, a first person with patient pronominals. We can certainly call verbs like uz^e'dha stative in a purely morphological sense, if we decide we are comfortable with wa- and u- and i- and so on in stative morphologies. But I think that the minute we address the existence of the extra nominal argument (when it is explicit), we have to concede that there is a big difference between this clause pattern and the stative pattern as it is usually conceived. It is true that a distressingly large number of the verbs that are comfortable with non-third person patient subjects turn out not to be stative verbs by this token, and that a lot of the most characteristically "adjectival" statives turn out to be quite uncomfortable with non-third person subjects, but I don't think this means that we really just have one class of verb, "stative" to deal with. Rather, I think it means we have let morphology thoroughly dominate our perception of Siouan verb classes. We might want to think of a verb like uz^e'dha as a transitive verb with an impersonal third person subject, but notice that this impersonal third person subject is fictitious in ways that the body part is not, that the body part takes a non-subject article, and that the body part is apparently governed by the u-locative prefix, which is certainly not typical of either subjects or locatives. As far as these uz^edha clauses seem to have subjects, in fact, it seems to be the patient-concorded "experiencer." I have not offered any test for subjecthood, but notice that when there is an auxiliary verb it agrees with the experiencer: hi' aNw-aN'-z^edha a-gdhiN' legs I was tired' I sat not *hi' aNw-aN'-z^edha gdhiN'=i legs I was tired they-sat (Sit is probably the wrong positional durative for legs, I grant.) wadhi'ttan=the aNw-aN'-z^edha he'ga=m=az^i work I am tired I not a little not *wadhi'ttaN=the aNw-aN'-z^edha he'ga=z^i work I am tired it not a little I don't know if I understand the syntax well enough to claim that that either of these constructions serves to prove that the experiencer s the subject, but I think it is clear that the experiencer is central in ways that the body part or other additional patient is. === There is one interesting issue with naN'ppe=...hiN 'be hungry'. Clearly this is structured as an experiencer, being something along the lines of NOUN=PAT-VERB. But once something incorporates its patient like this, and no external nominal argument is possible (as far as I know), maybe it is a stative, albeit a derived one. That is, the clause syntactic argument is gone. With the wa-statives, like waz^a'z^e, wakhe'ga, etc., it might be argued that the same argument applied, since wa generally precludes a nominal argument, and wa cannot be removed from these verbs. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 23:38:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:38:09 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: <002b01c3f312$5409dfc0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a flexible > concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside. It would be > interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns. 'Wind, water', and > 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially > "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may qualify > for -akha on that basis. On the other hand, animacy may not be involved at all. > This is a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way too. But notice also S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga. Horse-harness the it's heavy. The horse harness is heavy. I'll concede that 'horse harness' might be animate, but it seems less likely to be so. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 15 00:30:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:22 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Here, I'm going to argue a little. It seems that you are taking > verbs from three different grammatical classes, combining them > into one which you call "experiencer verbs", and holding them as > exclusive of stative verbs. I assume the three classes are dhiNge' (morphologically a simple root), git?e (gi DAT + root), and the wa-forms (wa-root). I do agree that these are three different morphosyntaxes. And I do agree that they all inflect as statives in the traditional sense of 'one patient a stative makes', modulo the peruliarities of inserting the patient pronominals into these three different morphosyntaxes (aNdhiNge, dhidhiNge, ...; iNt?e, dhit?e, ...; aNwaNkhega, wadhikhega, ...). However, the traditional analysis mixes morphological critria (how many inflections of what kind) and syntactic criteria (each and only each inflectional slot corresponds to one argument, so once you know the inflections of the verb, you know the argument structure of the verb). It's this last assumption that I believe turns out to be too facile, and so, in fact, the morphological statives (the one-patient verbs) turn out to conceal two synctactic classes of verb (the statives - as traditionally assumed - and the experiencer verbs - as we've been discussing them). Note that I'm not sure that all Siouan languages have lots of experiencer verbs. They seem to be pretty common in Mississippi Valley. > My understanding of "stative verbs" has always been that they are a set > of words approximately equivalent to English adjectives, except that > they conjugate as verbs, using the object, or patient, pronouns only. > This would be a functional/morphological class. By that definition, > dhiNge' would be a stative, albeit a bit unusual in intrinsically > referencing a non-existent 3rd person object in addition to an optional > patient subject. Exactly - the traditional morphological definition works, but the syntax doesn't. DhiNge' is approximately equivalent to an English adjective. It's approximately equivalent to an English transitive verb. And git?e is approximately equivalent to something that doens't even exist as a working verb type in English, leading to glosses like 'for one's own to die'. It's true that uz^edha and wakhe'ga are equivalent in some degree to English adjectives, but the first is also equivalent to 'to have (a) tired ...' or 'to be tired in/through/of one's ...'. That's where the syntax breaks down there. As I pointed out in a preceding letter, if an experiencer verb obligatorily incorporates it's patient, either as an incorporated noun or was wa-, it seems to me on further reflection that it becomes a derived stative. The morphosyntax includes an extra patient, but the syntax no longer does. So, on that logic I'd have to concede that naNppe=...hiN 'be hungry' and was^u's^e 'be brave' are, in fact, statives. > This is just a nuance of the allowed argument list of the verb, much as > 'give' differs from 'steal' in English. Pondering this, 'give' is ditransitive (also transitive and intransitive), while 'steal' is transitive (also intransitive) (but does admit some peripheral arguments, too). Maybe 'steal' vs. 'rob' would be a better example of subtile differences? But I'd say that dhiNge vs. ttaNga is actually more like a 'give' vs. 'steal' - a significant difference in the number of arguments admitted. > I think this argument depends on what we believe that wa- primordially > represents. Your view seems to be that it is originally a patient > marker. Yes, and there I'm afraid I still tend to prefer that analysis, though plainly there are two or three different views on wa- among Siouanists. > ..., it does seem to be the case that wa- can be added fairly freely to > many unquestionably stative verbs, and the conjugation follows the > expected (stative type) wa- paradigm. Examples the speakers approved > included: > > ski'ge heavy (objective description) > oNski'ge I am heavy. > dhiski'ge Thou art heavy. > waski'ge We are heavy. > > waski'ge heavy (person is stout) > oNwoN'skige I am heavy. > wadhi'skige Thou art heavy. > wawa'skige We are heavy. This is nice example. I'd argue again that wa- in the second set refers to the body or parts of it. So, both verbs are stative, but the different semantics of the second derive from its experiencer morphosyntax. I'm not too surprised to find a verb (or here, really, just the root) alternating between stative and experiencer with no marking, because this is a common pattern, e.g., English has verbs like 'give' and 'steal' mentioned above that can be used without derivation with different patterns of argument: I gave him a sandwich. (ditrans) I gave suitable gifts. (trans) I gave at the office. (intrans) I stole him a cookie. (ditrans) I stole a cookie. (trans) I stole constantly. (intrans) And there are other patterns, like: It rolled down hill. (intrans) He rolled it down hill. (trans) > My feeling is that prefixed wa- is to statives about what > postfixed -s^toN is to active verbs in the sense of indicating > characteristic as opposed to specific. Dorsey has one case where he glosses this 'chronic'. My kids would love that. However, I am happier with wa- referring chronically, albeit sometimes obscurely, to patients. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 15 00:55:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:55:03 -0700 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > MVS had [p], [t] and [k], as well as [h] and glottal stop [?]. > [h] could combine with the three oral stops on either side; > [?] could immediately follow them (but never precede them?). > Thus, we have four series of stops: > > [p] [t] [k] > [hp] [ht] [hk] > [ph] [th] [kh] > [p?] [t?] [k?] Correct, though there are schools of linguistics that get really fussy about thinking of hC, Ch and C? as combinations. You might flunk out of MIT for saying this wrong at the wrong moment. Fortunately, in many cass it appears that "combine" does explain the historical situation in Siouan. > We also have double stop clusters, like [pt] and [kt], which > have been reduced to single stops outside of Dakotan. (Do all > six possible combinations occur?) Glossing approximate pp OP ppase A1 (< base 'cut by pushing') pt Da pte, OP tte 'bison (cow)' pk Ma pke, OP kke 'turtle' (this one is a bit iffy, see next line) pk OP kkaNbdha A1 (< gaNdha 'want'), but ppaghe A1 (< gaghe 'make') tp Da nakpa, natpa, OP nitta, Wi naaNNc^awa 'external ear' tk Da yatkaN, OP dhattaN 'drink' kp Da kpaza, tpaza, OP ppaze, Wi (ho)kawas 'darkness' kt Da ktA, OP ttE IRREALIS > In Dhegihan, the stop retained is normally the second of the two; thus > [pt] and [kt] both become [tt]. This stop is normally held long, or > tense. T wins if it's present, fore or aft, and this has been argued to be due to metathesis. > In Dakotan, the pre-aspirates [hp], [ht] and [hk] merge with the > corresponding post-aspirates [ph], [th] and [kh]. (Right for which > is pre- and which is post- ?) Da shifts *th to h in initial position in verbs. > In OP, the [hp], [ht] and [hk] drop the [h] and have the stop held long > and tense: [pp], [tt] and [kk]. In addition, the plain stops [p], [t] > and [k] are voiced to help distinguish them from the tense series, > becoming [b], [d] and [g]. Correct. In SC clusters C is essentially unvoiced. In Cdh clusters it is voiced. S = s/s^/x; C = stop. > In OP, the original glottal stop [?] is lost, and [k?] => [?], a > new glottal stop set. [t?] and [p?] are retained. Many *ph become h. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Feb 15 05:55:33 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:55:33 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: >On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: >> I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a flexible >> concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside. It would be >> interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns. 'Wind, water', and >> 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially >> "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may qualify >> for -akha on that basis. On the other hand, animacy may not be involved at all. >> This is a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way too. > > But notice also > > S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga. > Horse-harness the it's heavy. > The horse harness is heavy. > > I'll concede that 'horse harness' might be animate, but it seems less > likely to be so. I tend to agree with John on this, but before we place too much weight on this one, let me clarify that this sentence was mine, not a spontaneous offering from the speakers. My head was still spinning with the epiphany of finally seeming to understand the proximate/obviate distinction; I explained it to Mark; he asked me to explain it to the class; I did so in the presence of the speakers, appealing to them with heavy eye-contact. They agreed heartily with my explanation and my sentence, but they have also been known to accept a student's rendering of aNsni'te for 'I am cold', which they quickly reject in favor of sniaN'te when it is just Mark and me. I *think* the above rendition is valid, but it needs to be tagged with a caveat. The sentences with ma' and ni', and the "Watch out!-- It's heavy!" were volunteered by the speakers without prompting. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 15:06:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:06:44 -0600 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? Message-ID: The only question marks for me are these: > Da shifts *th to h in initial position in verbs. I can't recall at the moment if we had real instances of initial *th in Dakotan. The reconstruction behind the set DAK h-, WINN j- and DHEG th- is *rh- (Allan Taylor's 1970's paper on motion verbs). These, in turn, probably stem from earlier *rV-h-, where the *rV- was probably a deictic or maybe the verb *re: 'go'. But maybe there are initial *th examples too. I'll have to do a search, something that is becoming harder and harder as Windows XP will no longer permit me to access the CSD files with their proper fonts. I have to crank up a Windows 98 machine with the files on it. > Many *ph become h. This is true in Omaha, Ponca and, as I recall, Quapaw, but not in Osage or Kansa. I *think* most of these *ph > h cases are bi-morphemic, i.e., the *p part is a different morpheme historically from the h, which begins the root. I guess the place to check for crucial examples might be the 1st sg. of the verb /hi/ and the noun 'mosquito'. But this probably isn't saying much, as most examples of /ph/ were bi-morphemic. Bob From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 15 15:08:20 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:08:20 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > Unfortunately, the meaning of <8AB8SKIG8 was lost since Marquette died > > before he could explain it. But when the place name made it back > > to Quebec/France/civilization, it was tranliterated, incorrectly, to > > "Ouabouskigou". Historians, at least beginning with Thwaites have thought > > that Marquette's place name is related to Miami-Illinois /waapaah$iiki/, > > the name of the Wabash River. > > And the crosswinds whip up again! > > Without in any way wishing to quibble with your etymologies, I would be > grateful to know why 8ab8skig8 would be incorrectly transliterated > ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought > that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? > > Puzzled in Sioux City (metaphorically speaking). > Dear Puzzled in (sort of) Sioux City: This is a very good question. Through my own digging and delving as well as by tapping Dave Costa's reservoir, it’s clear that the letter 8, which is a circle surmounted by a crescent (very hard to type in e-mail-available fonts...but often written like an eight even by the Jesuits in the 18th century), represents many phonological possibilities in the recording of the Miami-Illinois language, to wit: In word-initial position, this orthographic symbol can represent w-, sometimes oow- before a vowel, and oo- ~ uu- before a consonant. Between vowels, it stands for - w-, sometimes - o(o)w-. Between consonants that are not followed by w and a following vowel it stands for either - o(o)w - ~ - u(u)w-. When it appears between two consonants, the letter represents -o(o)- ~ -u(u)-, and in word-final position, 8 typically represents -o(o) ~ -u(u). (I should add that o(o) and u(u) are the same phoneme in Miami-Illinois). As you know, French has no problem rewriting in standard orthograph any of these phonological values for 8. In French they mostly show up as orthographic ou, sometimes o. The thing is, though, there's a wild card. The Jesuit missionaries in the Illinois, starting from the get-go with Marquette in 1673 and running through Le Boullenger in the 1730s, at least, also used the letter 8 quite freely and indiscriminately to stand for wa(a). It was surely shorthand. If you were a busy Jesuit (and we know they were *very* driven, busy people) you would write < irenans8 > 'bison', for example. Now, you knew very well that your 8 here stood for wa. But for any document created by a Jesuit in the West that made it back to Quebec or France, ambiguity, the bane of linguists (and far more so of historians), raised its ugly head for folks back home. It's clear that they had no idea the priests in the field were giving this phonological value to 8. Each of the three Illinois dictionaries has many examples of 8 representing wa. I've found fifty or so in the Illinois-French dictionary commonly attributed to Jacques Gravier. But we don’t even have to go poking around in musty old dictionaries to find examples. Marquette’s nice, clean holograph map of the Mississippi demonstrates how the letter 8 had a very protean nature. One example is his , his spelling of Ojibwe pooteewaatamii. (Marquette was fluent in Objiwe). As you can see, although the first 8 of his recording predictably stands for oo, the second 8 represents waa. In addition, his <8chage> is Miami-Illlinois waašaaši (š = sh), an ethnonym familiar to Siouan listeros. Then, if you look in Marquette’s holograph journal of his second trip to Kaskaskia, you find , which was the name of a highly respected Illinois Indian trader whom the priest met in 1675 while wintering over near present-day Chicago. In this man’s name the first <-8-> stands predictably for -w-, but the final <-8> was intended by Marquette to represent none other than -wa. That said, what we see in the history books, both in French and in English, is “Chachagwessiou”. However, not only does the final syllable of this spelling not line up with the other spellings of this word on record, which are in agreement, but also the word-final vowel sequence -io, represented here by orthographic <-iou>, does not even exist in Miami- Illinois. Marquette’s is Miami-Illinois šaahšaakweehsiwa ‘copperhead’. As far as Marquette’s <8AB8SKIG8> goes, the Jesuit scholar Camille de Rochemonteix showed that there was at least one priest not working in the Illinois country who was somewhat informed about the letter 8 when he translitereated <8AB8SKIG8> to “Ouaboukigoa”. Here De Rochemonteix correctly wrote -oa, which in French represents the sound -wa. Perenially Perplexed Pip > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 15 15:14:14 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:14:14 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought > that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? > I might add that there's one odd-ball use of 8. The letter was used by the Jesuits to write the name "Jesus". You see: . This is completely out in left field, since the u represented here in French Jesus is the high front *rounded* vowel, written a couple of different ways by linguists, but perhaps most recognizably by u-umlaut. Michael From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 15 15:16:28 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:16:28 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Someone has published on the origin of 8. I can't recall who it was, unfortunately. It is even known what year it arrived in French orthography. I believe it came from Russia, but that part's fuzzy. Michael On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > The Cyrillic use of the letter Y for /u/ is a graphic variant of earlier > > Greek <8> (with the top open, of course). > > I suppose that makes sense. I'd always assumed it was based on capital > upsilon, which is Y-shaped. But probably the miniscules were in use by > the time Cyrillic was developed. Actually, psilon is the nominative > neuter singular of psilo's 'plain, unornamented, unadorned, prosaic, > treeless, without armor', a familiar concatenation of ideas, and upsilon > and epsilon are "plain u" and "plain e." I had thought this was in > opposition to ou and ei, but when I looked up psilon I also checked the > letter articles and it appears that epsilon is plainer than the newfangled > eta and upsilon means vocalic u as opposed to w. > > > From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 15:39:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:39:29 -0600 Subject: OFF TOPIC -- use of 8. Message-ID: I'd call the use of the letter(s) <8> for the u of "Jes8s" an instance of "theography." It goes hand-in-hand with "theophony", the use of a unique phoneme in a dialect or language only in the word for, or name of, the Deity. Examples include the use of a very low, back rounded vowel in the American English word "God" as uttered by some ministers of my acquaintance. Also the existence of the pharyngealized "L" phoneme in Koranic Arabic only in the word "Allah". Bob From are2 at buffalo.edu Sun Feb 15 20:38:05 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:38:05 -0500 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: <002b01c3f312$5409dfc0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I have some notes related to the general theme of late: 1. I have only gotten wa for 3plural subject 'they' of statives a few times & I think these were just errors in my elicitation. 2. The wa of wakHega does not take the place of the thing hurting. WakHega + a body part that hurts maintains the wa. Mrs. Marcella Cayou gave an example of this at the UmoNhoN Language Center which I don't have right now. Upon further elicitation, it was shown that long term illnesses use wakHega (niye 'hurts' is used for short term). The pattern is ___(body part)__ + wakHega(conjugated) So, TethasoNtasi oN-wakHega kidney me-sick 'I have kidney disease.' This supports an analysis of wa- as an activity marker (it removes telicity, end points) which developed from the plural object but is now separate. 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.' But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed which are culturally important. It frequently occurs with 'day,' weather terms (snow, rain etc.), heavenly bodies (sun, moon etc.) Interestingly, these also tend to take adjectives (descriptive words, statives) which are reserved for animates. That is, trees don't take tega 'new' but 'young,' and not 'itoNthadi' 'old-inanimate' but iNsh'age 'old man.' (This is from my dissertation.) The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's because it is so related to horse (animate). I've never seen akHa with something like 'pencil.' It should be noted that the natural phenomenon noted above often have animate-like features, too. The Sun moves, so does wind and snow and rain. Also, these change and effect things, too. So, aside from the cultural context, there are other reasons to mark them as proximate. 4. THe articles should really not be called 'focus' markers. They don't mark the linguistic concept of focus regularly. Often, they are marking given material (topic - not focus, which is new material). Consistently, however, they mark characters (or things, as per 3) which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of conversation. Well, that's all I remember right now. -Ardis From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 21:04:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:04:19 -0600 Subject: 8 again. Message-ID: Makes sense. Whereas in Greek it was an alternative to the digraph, , in Cyrillic the early /u/ used 8 as the norm. The oldest Cyrillic "u"s used something very like <8>, but with the circle in the lower half smaller than the "cup" on top. Ultimately it evolved into the current "y". > Someone has published on the origin of 8. I can't recall who it was, > unfortunately. It is even known what year it arrived in French > orthography. I believe it came from Russia, but that part's fuzzy. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 21:41:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:41:06 -0600 Subject: somewhat off-topic: animacy again. Message-ID: > 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.' > But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed > which are culturally important. The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's because it is so > related to horse (animate). I've never seen akHa with something > like 'pencil.' I experimented with the notions [+human] and/or [+animate] with Spanish speakers in one of my grammar classes. You recall that in Spanish a human direct object requires the preposed accusative marker {a}, usually described as a "preposition". Juan ama a Maria "John loves Mary". I wondered how many different things speakers could consider "animate" for the purposes of this construction. It varied widely with nationality, gender, context, the verb used, etc. Humans all qualified, including titles like 'profesor', 'jefe', proper names, etc. Pets qualified quite generally -- dogs & cats. Childrens dolls, including stuffed animals generally qualified. Farm animals (domesticated) were OK for some, but not as you are eating them -- cows, pigs, horses, etc. For others, farm animals didn't make the grade. Statues generally didn't, although statues of humans were OK. Even something as totally inanimate as a bridge or building made it into the class as long as one was talking about, say, the architect or engineer, who considered it as "his baby" -- that sort of thing. But of course generally such things wouldn't qualify. It was an interesting exercise in linguistic creativity. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 22:11:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:11:10 -0600 Subject: Siouan and other highlighting morphology. Message-ID: I agree with Ardis. Moreover, this seems very often to be a feature of "pronominal argument" languages like Siouan and Muskogean. Since arguments are clarified by prefixes on the verb, the actual nominals in the sentence (which many linguists take *not* to be "arguments" of the verb) strongly tend to have their *own* grammar. And that grammar is most often discourse-based, i.e., its morphology is *not* marking grammatical relations such as "subject" or "object". Rather it is signaling the sort of relationships Ardis is suggesting for what we call "proximate/obviative" in Dhegiha. It may be topicalizing or focusing or simply highlighting, among other things. In Muskogean languages, for example, there are discourse markers (-t and -n) that signal "center-stage" and "off-stage" -- -t highlights what is central. But within Muskogean, Choctaw has additional particles that mark 'topic' (-o$). For years these -t/-n particles were erroniously described as marking 'subject' and 'object/oblique', but then, when identical particles occurred on entire clauses they were described as marking 'switch-reference'. But 'switch-reference' is another misnomer; it's all one system, and it marks central vs. "obviative" in the discourse. The system is free to do this because the essential argument structure is covered by the pronominal prefixes. And I suspect such systems are much more prevalent than linguists have believed (the noun and identical clause markers in Walapai are another case). I really hate to move away from sentence-based grammar and into discourse myself, but if we're going to understand these sub-systems, like article and (-abi) verb suffix use in Dhegiha, it is the direction we have to move. Lead on, Ardis. Bob > 4. THe articles should really not be called 'focus' markers. They > don't mark the linguistic concept of focus regularly. Often, they are > marking given material (topic - not focus, which is new material). > Consistently, however, they mark characters (or things, as per 3) > which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of > conversation. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Feb 16 00:48:58 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:48:58 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: > 1. I have only gotten wa for 3plural subject 'they' of statives a few > times & I think these were just errors in my elicitation. Good! I'm sure my initial posting of wa- in that position for statives was erroneous elicitation on my part. It looks like wa- is used only for 'us', not for 'them', in stative verbs. > 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.' > But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed > which are culturally important. It frequently occurs with 'day,' > weather terms (snow, rain etc.), heavenly bodies (sun, moon etc.) > Interestingly, these also tend to take adjectives (descriptive words, > statives) which are reserved for animates. That is, trees don't take > tega 'new' but 'young,' z^iN'ga ? > and not 'itoNthadi' 'old-inanimate' but > iNsh'age 'old man.' (This is from my dissertation.) We probably should distinguish plants from planets here. I would expect that plants would take 'old' and 'young' like animals, because they are living things that go through a definite life cycle. But does this principle actually extend to other of the phenomena listed? I don't suppose that 'new moon' translates literally into Omaha, but do animate-type adjectives really apply to planets, rain, snow, ice and so on as 'old' and 'young' apply to plants? > The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's because it is so > related to horse (animate). I've never seen akHa with something > like 'pencil.' Again, caveat lector! The proximate form of the horse harness was my sentence, not the speakers', though they did approve it. Perhaps you can double check this with the speakers in Macy. Meanwhile, I'll check on pencils with the speakers here. > It should be noted that the natural phenomenon noted above often have > animate-like features, too. The Sun moves, so does wind and snow and > rain. Also, these change and effect things, too. So, aside from the > cultural context, there are other reasons to mark them as proximate. Dorsey notes that statements regarding the future of the weather cannot be tta tHe', as that would indicate that that the speaker could control the weather. Rather, they must be tta akHa', in deference to the fact that the weather acts of its own free will. > 4. THe articles should really not be called 'focus' markers. They > don't mark the linguistic concept of focus regularly. Often, they are > marking given material (topic - not focus, which is new material). > Consistently, however, they mark characters (or things, as per 3) > which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of > conversation. Could you elaborate on this for someone who is a bit challenged on the linguistic jargon? In OP we have a series of things that I have been calling positionals: akHa' dhiN kHe ama' tHoN tHe dhiNkHe' dhoN ma ge dhoNkHa' I've understood that the two on the left marked proximate, and all the others marked obviative. Bob recently posted a very interesting item noting the absence of the first two in Quapaw, using the term 'positional' as exclusive of the akHa' and ama'. Now you seem to be using the term 'article' for only the proximate two on the left. Do we still have a term for all of these together? Then what about 'topic' and 'focus'? I've generally understood a topic in Siouan as a noun phrase that the verb comments upon, but that's apparently not what you mean here. I was using 'focus' to mean entities "which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of conversation". Apparently 'focus' has some other formal meaning. Care to clue me in? Thanks, Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 02:58:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: <1076857700.402f8b64797b8@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Michael! That clarifies matters for me, though it must be confusing to work with in practice. I almost wonder if it was wA with a voiceless a, interpreted as a sort of w or u. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 03:52:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:52:48 -0700 Subject: Moon Phases (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I don't suppose that 'new moon' translates literally into Omaha, but do > animate-type adjectives really apply to planets, rain, snow, ice and so > on as 'old' and 'young' apply to plants? I looked in the Dorsey texts and found various expressions that might be relevant. One is miN'=khe t?e 'the moon died, was dead'. In the contexts this seems to mean 'when the moon had waned entirely' because there is an emphasis on it being dark. It is clearly a time of the lunar month, not moonset. Another expression, a time expression, is miN' dhe' he'be 'part of this moon', which seems in the context to mean 'before the end of the (lunar) month'. Another time expression is exemplified by miN' naNba'=the=di=hi=kki 'moon two=the=in=to_arrive_there=when' or 'in two months' or 'after/at the end of two months' (JOD 90:655.3, not translated in the English text!). MiN' dhe' gu=a'dhis^aN=khe=di 'moon this yonder=approaching=the=in' (Dorsey 'moon this beyond in-the') 'after this month'. Dhis^aN figures in idioms expressions for drawing near to or going around. MiN' dhe' s^e'=na 'moon this that=many' (Dorsey 'moon this enough'; s^e'na is idiomatic for 'enough, complete, finished') 'at the end of the month' or perhaps 'at the full of the moon'. In Buechel, I find wit?e 'new moon' (suggesting that the OP expression miN t?e refers to 'at the new moon') and wimima (mimA' 'round, circular') 'full moon'. Also wilec^ala (lec^a'la 'lately, a little while ago') 'crescent moon'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 04:27:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:27:17 -0700 Subject: Regular and Evidential Future (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Dorsey notes that statements regarding the future of the weather > cannot be tta tHe', as that would indicate that that the speaker > could control the weather. Rather, they must be tta akHa', in > deference to the fact that the weather acts of its own free will. Dorsey usually glosses =tta=(i)=the as 'shall surely', while =tta=akha (=tta=ama) using the "animate proximate (subject)" articles are the usual third persons of the irrealis (first person =tta=miNkhe, miNkhe being the first person of the 'animate sitting obviative (subject or object)' article dhiNkhe (in third singular form). The 'shall surely' forms look like the irrealis combined with the "evidential" sense of the inanimate articles. These articles appear at the end of sentences with what I take to be the sense 'evidently, apparently, one can conclude that'. Dorsey just glosses this as past tense, sometimes adding a positional sense, e.g., khe 'the horizontal, the dead' might be glossed as past + 'in a straight line'. The same set of morphemes appear also in the sense of 'when' with subordinate clauses and time demonstratives. Catherine Rudin and Bob Rankin have pointed out to me that the regular future always has the particular set of articles illustrated here: 1s tta=miNkhe 1p (incl) tt(a)=aNgathaN, tt(a)=aNgadhiN 2s tta=(s^)niNkhe 2p tta=(s^)naNkhe 3s tta=akha 3p tta=ama The 1s, 2s, and 3d forms are drawn from the paradigm of dhiNkhe 'the (sitting, animate, obviative)'. The 1p forms are from the paradigm of 'the (standing, animate, obviative)' or 'the (moving, animate, obviative)'. The 3s and 3p forms are the animate obviative articles. These are not precisely singlar and plural. Dorsey makes them singular not moving and singular moving or plural, while Eschenberg (Ardis, of course) has an explanation in terms of already being and entering proximity. Quintero (Carolyn) has noticed some degree of remoteness (less or more) seems to apply to the cognate Osage forms. All of these articles or positionals are also used as obviative or proximate continuative or imperfect auxiliaries, as well as in this future auxiliary paradigm. The use of an auxiliary with the future is peculiar to Dhegiha within Mississippi Valley Siouan, but Crow-Hidatsa uses a future auxiliary without an trace of the *=kt(E) irrealis marker, and I've noticed that most of the forms rather resemble the first, inflected syllable of the MVS 'sit' auxiliary, e.g., Crow has (for the auxiliary ii 'want to, intend to', which I thijk is what's sometiems called 'the future'): 1s b-ii 1p b-ii-lu 2s d-ii 2p d-ii-lu (no third persons) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 04:59:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:59:08 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Could you elaborate on this for someone who is a bit challenged > on the linguistic jargon? In OP we have a series of things that > I have been calling positionals: > > akHa' dhiN kHe > ama' tHoN tHe > dhiNkHe' dhoN > ma ge > dhoNkHa' > > I've understood that the two on the left marked proximate, and > all the others marked obviative. Bob recently posted a very > interesting item noting the absence of the first two in Quapaw, > using the term 'positional' as exclusive of the akHa' and ama'. > Now you seem to be using the term 'article' for only the proximate > two on the left. Do we still have a term for all of these together? I think he meant that only the first set was missing, including ama (apa, aba in Osage, Kaw), but not the ma (pa, ba) in the second set, which iss present (in Osage, Kaw, Quapaw). In OP it is reasonably clear that this second set form is just =ma, but this seems less clear to those studying the more southerly Dhegiha languages, or maybe the initial a- of the first set is less clear or both. Note that in Osage and Kaw the analog of the OP akha article s (a)kxa and the analog of the OP thaN article is txa(N), often kxa(N), while the male declarative form (?) of *=pi is =pa (or =ba) (< =p(i)=a ?), and it requires a certain amount of divine inspiration to make out the various =kxa and =pa (=ba) enclitics of nouns and sentence. It's not clear to what extent the inanimate markes in the third column mark obviative or are independent of the whole obviative/proximate thing. It's not clear if inanimates (marked with column 3, as opposed to column 1) can be subjects. > Then what about 'topic' and 'focus'? I've generally understood > a topic in Siouan as a noun phrase that the verb comments upon, > but that's apparently not what you mean here. I was using 'focus' > to mean entities "which are of central concern, centerstage in > narratives, topic of conversation". Apparently 'focus' has some > other formal meaning. I'm going to shy away from this, except to say that I have myself no doubt been guilty of saying "focus of attention" in a very loose way where topic, or even definite, would be more appropriate and was guiltily aware that Ardis might well be chiding me. I haven't looked yet! The problem is that linguists are now very technical with these terms and their use of focus is only partly in accord with the popular understanding of the term. In popular usage "the topic of the discussion" (the particular subject ewe discussed) and "the focus of the discussion" (what we kept coming back to, or what we were concentrating on) are more or less synonymous, though not precisely. In linguistic usage the topic is the "old information in a clause" ("the dog" in "the dog caught a rat") and the focus is "new information, with attention drawn to it," more or less, e.g., "a rat" in "it was a rat that the dog caught." A collection of clauses can share a topic, but a coherent set can hardly share a focus. I hope somebody who is full touch with current practice will take this up and correct my errors! (Here and earlier.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 05:51:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:51:48 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: <1076877485.402fd8adb244e@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > 2. The wa of wakHega does not take the place of the thing hurting. > WakHega + a body part that hurts maintains the wa. > Mrs. Marcella Cayou gave an example of this at the UmoNhoN Language > Center which I don't have right now. Upon further elicitation, it was > shown that long term illnesses use wakHega (niye 'hurts' is used for > short term). The pattern is ___(body part)__ + wakHega(conjugated) > > So, > TethasoNtasi oN-wakHega > kidney me-sick > 'I have kidney disease.' > > This supports an analysis of wa- as an activity marker (it removes > telicity, end points) which developed from the plural object but is > now separate. This is particularly interesting. It plumps wakhe'ga back into the syntactic experiencer verb class, but plays hob with my "wa- as patient" arguments, though I belive that they are still essentially correct diachronically. One thing tha has occurred to me is to wonder if perhaps essentially verbs of the stative morphological persuasion might not potentially be able to behave as experiencer verbs. For example, with bize 'be dry', perhaps one can easily say (?) unaN'z^iN aNbi'ze shirt I am dry 'my shirt is dry' The fact that an extra wa- is required in this usage with ski'ge 'heavy' might suggest to the contrary, or maybe the wa- wouldn't be needed in a sentence like (?) niN'de aNski'ge rump I am heavy Or maybe si' 'foot' would work here. I'm trying to think of inalienable heavy things. I might had that my impression that wa- in wakhe'ga 'be sick' refers, at least originally, to the affected organ is founded at least partly on comparative evidence: Os ...huhe'ga (stative) 'sick' Ks ...huhe'ga (stative) 'sick' I think here hu- is 'bone, leg', historically, i.e., 'bone-hega', and that wakhega is wa-k-hega, with a dative prefix, e.g., 'for one's wa- to be hega'. The morphosyntax PAT+N(incorporated)+VERB is unusual. Hu- would have to be non-transparent, or one would expect N(inc)+PAT+VERB. I don't see anything comparable in Quapaw, and I don't know of any sure cognates outside of Dhegiha, though IO has he'ge 'little, a little, not very much', and Dakota has he'kta 'that behind, last (of a time period)'. I suppose the latter is he-k-ta 'toward that', but I'm not sure. The expected Dakotan cognate form would be *(k)hec^a, and, of course, he'c^a is 'thus' < he 'that', but there are no traces of he 'that in Dhegiha. None of these seem strikingly plausible. In particular, nothing with *(k)heka in the fairly direct sense of 'sick, feeble' appears that I am aware of. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 06:55:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:55:11 -0700 Subject: 2 x o...phA In-Reply-To: <13148861686.20040212210830@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Wablenica wrote: > KJE> What's the page number on this? I see that Buechel lists just o'pha > KJE> (ouNpha=pi) 'go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. He puts a > KJE> macron over this o, but doesn't write oo as in previous entries (which I > KJE> assume have rearticulation). > > (Boas & Deloria "Dakota Grammar") > Page 79. > 80. Stems with two initial vowels. > ... > Locative prefixes are often contracted, either among themselves or > with other elements. In these cases the accent is on the first > syllable and the verbs are treated like those with uncontracted > prefixes. > > i'phi to be satisfied with food, i'uNphi; > ... I'd almost wonder if the i'- examples didn't have i= 'mouth', but that doesn't explain the o'- examples. However, it isn't clear what element is being contracted with o- (or i-) here. I think the contraction argument is being offered by analogy with out cases of initial accent. > o'pha he joins, takes part in, o'uNpha(1) > ... > --------- > 1 But opha' to go by way of, uNko'pha. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Page 32. > The following also behave irregularly [as regards ablaut - C.C.] > > Variable: yu'ta to eat; opha' to go by way of > Invariable: ayu'ta to look at; o'pha to take part in, to join a group OP z^u'=he 'ford' OP uhe'=athaN 'steps, bridge' (follow + tread on) OP uhe' 'follow (a creek, a shoreline, outline of camp)' OP (e=d(i))=ui'ha 'follow (group of people)', 'join (a group of people, a race)' -i- < -gi- DATIVE OP ugi'he 'follow one's own's trail' OP udhu'he 'follow (tracks, a trail, a route, a guide)' OP udhu'he 'cradle board' (means for baby to follow one?) Os ops^e' 'a ford' Os o'ps^e 'that which is walked upon: a bridge' Os o'ps^e 'passing from one group to another' Os odho'ps^e 'follow trail of animal' Os odho'ps^e 'cradle board' Ks o'phe 'to wish, to grant or get one's way' (?) Ks niN z^o'phe 'ford, wade' Ks z^aN a'phe ttaNge 'bridge' (wood on-"phe" big) Ks ophe' 'path, trail' Ks ophe' 'follow, as a road or stream' Ks okkiohe 'join as a partner, as in a game (?)' [h] Ks oyo'phe 'row a boat, paddle; oarsmen' Ks oyo'phe 'cradle board' Qu a'niz^o'he 'ford a stream' Qu e'=tti oi'he 'follow, go with, attend' IO n[y]iyu'we 'ford' IO uwe' 'be moving in, travel in, go through, go past, pass along in, go into, follow' IO iro'ware 'follow (a trade, a track)' IO iro'we 'follow (footsteps, a trail) (of a non-relative)' IO igro'were 'follow (trail, tracks), seaching to find someone' (a relative?) I hoha'wa/e 'cradle board' O hoku'wa 'cradle board' It looks like all these general areas, 'ford, wade', 'bridge', 'follow', 'follow by means of', 'join a group', and 'cradle board' can derive froma root *phe in Dhegiha and Ioway-Otoe. I haven't checked Winnebago, but think it's similar. The *phe root is he in OP and Qu, phe in Os and Ks (Os phe being written ps^e), and we in IO. I wonder if the contraction in Dakota o'phe 'join' involves a reflex of the dative -(g)i- in Dhegiha, i.e., o'phe < *oi'phe? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 08:34:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:34:15 -0700 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? In-Reply-To: <001b01c3f3d5$6cf0cd50$24b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I can't recall at the moment if we had real instances of initial *th in > Dakotan. The reconstruction behind the set DAK h-, WINN j- and DHEG th- > is *rh- (Allan Taylor's 1970's paper on motion verbs). These, in turn, > probably stem from earlier *rV-h-, where the *rV- was probably a deictic > or maybe the verb *re: 'go'. But maybe there are initial *th examples > too. I'll have to do a search, something that is becoming harder and > harder as Windows XP will no longer permit me to access the CSD files > with their proper fonts. I have to crank up a Windows 98 machine with > the files on it. Actually, I'd forgotten, it's not just initially. This is Taylor's *rh, of course, and one or two cases of it may derived from *r(V)-h, as in *thi 'arrive here' and *the/*thaN [vertical positional]. But this is also the set in *thu 'to have intercourse with', *pethaN 'to fold', *phethaN 'crane' (the avian kind), *(wa)the 'skirt', *(o)thiN 'strike', *=thaN 'extent; from', *maNthe 'inside, under'. About the only set I can think of immediately where *th comes out th in Dakotan is *maNtho' 'grizzly'. There's also *(h)i(N)thuN-ka 'mouse', and *othaN 'wear leggings' (not voiced in Winnebago-Chiwere), and so entirely anomalous. > > Many *ph become h. > > This is true in Omaha, Ponca and, as I recall, Quapaw, but not in Osage > or Kansa. I *think* most of these *ph > h cases are bi-morphemic, i.e., > the *p part is a different morpheme historically from the h, which > begins the root. I guess the place to check for crucial examples might > be the 1st sg. of the verb /hi/ and the noun 'mosquito'. But this > probably isn't saying much, as most examples of /ph/ were bi-morphemic. OP phi 'I arrived there' OP nahaNga 'mosquito' OP has *ph in e'giphe 'I said it (to him)', but not ehe' 'I said (the preceding)'. It has ph in aNphaN 'elk'. It has h in the 'follow' set and in u'he 'mortar' (*phe 'to pound'). I had forgotten that Quapaw also has h < *ph as often as not. I assumed Rory was asking only about OP. JEK From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Mon Feb 16 12:45:53 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:45:53 +0000 Subject: on 8 in Jesus Message-ID: Since the French missionaries were literate in Greek, they would have been familiar with the fact that Jesus in Greek is spelt EEsous, with an /ou/ digraph, an maybe that's why the used 8 when writing Jesus' name. For the record, spelings using 8 are found in 17th century Mohawk liturgical materials in which the name of the Christian God is taken from French 'Dieu', suitably palatallised, eg. Ki8. And let's remember tat many languages in which French missionaries in N America workd lacked a phonemic distinction between mid-back amd upper-back oral vowels anyway. (Illinois, for instance.) Anthony From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Feb 16 15:03:37 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:03:37 -0600 Subject: Moon Phases (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > I looked in the Dorsey texts and found various expressions that might be > relevant. One is miN'=khe t?e 'the moon died, was dead'. In the contexts > this seems to mean 'when the moon had waned entirely' because there is an > emphasis on it being dark. Ojibway has giizis nibo 'the luminary (sun/moon) is eclipsed', lit. 'the sun/moon has died/is dead'. There are terms for the new moon based on 'new' and 'stops shining'. (When ambiguity arises, the moon is distinguished as dibik-giizis, 'night luminary'.) Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Feb 16 16:17:57 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:17:57 -0500 Subject: Moon Phases (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: <4030DBC9.9060308@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: In Nahuatl: me:tstli kwa:lo: 'moon is eaten' On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > Koontz John E wrote: > > > I looked in the Dorsey texts and found various expressions that might be > > relevant. One is miN'=khe t?e 'the moon died, was dead'. In the contexts > > this seems to mean 'when the moon had waned entirely' because there is an > > emphasis on it being dark. > > Ojibway has giizis nibo 'the luminary (sun/moon) is eclipsed', lit. 'the > sun/moon has died/is dead'. There are terms for the new moon based on > 'new' and 'stops shining'. (When ambiguity arises, the moon is > distinguished as dibik-giizis, 'night luminary'.) > > Alan > > > From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Mon Feb 16 17:41:15 2004 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert VanValin) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:41:15 -0500 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: In my book 'Syntax' with R. LaPolla (CUP, 1997), I have a homework problem in the grammatical relations chapter (pp. 311-13) using data I collected back when I was working on my dissertation. It includes data on the issues you raise. > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? If the conjunction is 'na', then only 'the boy' can be interpreted as the one who is tired; when the conjunction is 'cha', then it's possible to interpret 'the deer' as the one who is tired. The different interpretations seem to be a function of the different conjunctions. Van *********** Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. Professor & Chair Department of Linguistics 609 Baldy Hall University at Buffalo The State University at New York Buffalo, NY 14260 USA Phone: 716-645-2177, ext. 713 Fax: 716-645-3825 VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/vanvalin.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1196 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Feb 16 18:12:46 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:12:46 -0000 Subject: Greeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Following Violet's useful contribution on nape etc I wonder if I could ask what is the Lakota verb 'to greet'. I only know the word napekiciyuzapi meaning 'to shake hands'. Is there another word other than saying 'hau ekiya 'say hallo to', which i have seen used. Can houkiya 'send the voice' have the meaning of 'greet from a distance, send regards' Bruce Date sent: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:01:10 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "CATCHES VIOLET" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: anuNg - nupa > WHILE IT DOESN'T EXPLICTLY SAY THE WORD FOR TWO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD, > ANUNKXA, on both sides, on each side etc, like at the top and bottom, > opposing sides, only two sides, head-tail, right-left, above-below, on > top-on bottom, > so namp anunkxa yuza hypothetically, i went to shake the hand (one) of a > grieving person, and felt really sorry when i saw him/her, i would take > his/her hand in both of mine and slightly rub in to show my sympathy... > Violet > > > naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with > both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is > 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', > but, >as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a > morpheme for 'two'. << > > > > > >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k where > >the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], the > >initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the > >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) > > > >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] > >'Weißkopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the > >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? > > > >Alfred > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime > features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1 > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 17 07:08:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:08:01 -0700 Subject: OP Derivatives of dhiNge 'to lack' Message-ID: I had noticed some examples of OP dhiNge with derivational prefixes that seemed to still have the experiencer subject structure that I thought might be interesting. 1) gi'dhiNge 'to be without one's own' 90:356.19-20 miN'z^iNga wiN e'gaN gi'dhiNga= bi=ama girl a thus they lacked their own PL QUOTE 'in the same way they lost a daughter' It's difficult to tell in the third person, but I assume this form is not transitivized, but remains stative in inflection, and thus an experiencer subject verb in syntax. 2) udhu'dhiNge 'to be insuffficient for one' 90:725.6 u'wa?i= the udhu'dhidhiNge=tta=the what they give you (=rations) the they will surely be insufficient for you 'You are likely to find the rations insufficient' (This is a future of certainly, with the evidential dhaN appended to the irrealis marker =tta instead of the usual auxiliary.) Here the patient form -dhi- for you shows we have an experiencer formation. 3) udhu'kkidhiNge 'to not suffice among a group' 90:735.2 nittaN'ga masa'ni=khe maNz^aN' udhu'dhikkidhiNga=i= dhaN ocean beyond the land it did not suffice for all of you when maz^aN' wiwi'tta=dhaN dhathi land mine the you came here 'As you apparently found Europe insufficient for you, you came here to my land' (Example of evidential dhaN as 'when') OP reflexives are normally active, but here we have -dhi- P2, not dha A2. It's interesting to se that kki- goes not take the form kkig- before dh in dhiNge as it does in the next case, before the instrumental dhi. 4) kkigdhi'dhiNge 'to destroy for oneself by tearing' < underlying dhidhiN'ge 'to destroy by tearing' wathe'=dhaN kkigdhi'dhiNge= xti= aN= bi= ama skirt the she destroyed for herself by tearing very AUX PROX QUOTE It's difficult to tell here, but it looks like the dhi-instrumental transitivizes this form. I also noticed, but am a bit puzzled with: i'dhiNge 'to be tired' Assuming we have an instrumental locative, and not some sort of directional marker, I suppose this is 'lacking by means of'. That sense might underlie the next two. z^e'(=)t[h](=)idhiNge 'to excrete' (z^e' 'excrement') I suppose the structure here has points in common with English 'to void'. z^aN(=)t[h](=)idhiNge 'to be sleepy' (z^aN 'to lie') More or less, 'sleep deprived'. I assume the -t- is the article the 'the (inaimate upright)' here. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 08:16:00 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:16:00 -0000 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <402BFB01.8070007@uvic.ca> Message-ID: I know it doesn't quite answer your question, but even if you do mention the deer in that type of sentence, I think you would often put in is^ or ins^ or ins^ eya following deer as a change of subject na thah^ca ki ins^ eya lila watukha. However Violet and others may be able to confirm or correct this Bruce Date sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:15:29 -0800 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Shannon West To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. > Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can > >you have something like: > > > >1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > > >And, then, in the sentence: > > > >2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > > >Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > >"the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > >mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > >would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > > > >These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? > > > >Bob > > > > > In Nakoda, my consultant would not allow the object of the first clause > to be the subject of the second, regardless of the verb class. So > sentences like (2) are never ambiguous to her. The only way you could > get that the deer was tired was to put in an emphatic pronoun, a big > pause and the consideration that the deer was old information. Even then > she didn't overly like the construction. > > Even sentences like "The man insulted the woman and then (x) sulked" > always read that the subject of the first clause was the subject of the > second. It helped motivate my argument that there is a VP in Nakoda. > > Shannon > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 13:31:02 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:31:02 -0000 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Could it by Shawnee as in the Dakota Shawani Bruce Date sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:22:37 -0500 (EST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Michael Mccafferty To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. > Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's Découverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 16:20:17 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:20:17 -0000 Subject: Off the list question In-Reply-To: <000b01c3eb61$4683be60$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: How interesting. What language is it in? Date sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:55:52 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "Louis Garcia" To: Subject: Re: Off the list question > Hi gang: > I have an 1870 treaty between the Dakota and Ojibway. > The treaty is an inter-tribal one called the Ft. Abercrombie Treaty arranged > by Fr. Genin. > > Who could I contact to have the Ojibway names translated? > LouieG > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 17 16:29:19 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:29:19 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: J. Morse _Rep. to Secy. of War_ (1822) p. 21 gives O-shun-gu-lap as the self-designation of the Winebago Tribe. Is the -p just spurious? Alan From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Tue Feb 17 17:42:07 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:42:07 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Reply Message-ID: The treaty is in English. It is printed in the St. Paul, MN newspaper for August or September1870. I can identify the Spirit Lake and Lake Traverse Dakota leaders. Mark Diedrich (Rochester, MN) say the Ojibway are all from White Earth, MN. Alan Hartley has translated most of the names. Later, LouieG From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 17 18:32:53 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:32:53 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" with its article. I'd guess the -p may well be the same one we have in English "Yep" (for 'yes'), where the -p just represents the definitive closure of the oral cavity. Just a guess though. And, no, I don't think it's a pluralizer. :-) Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:29 AM To: Siouan Subject: Hochank variant J. Morse _Rep. to Secy. of War_ (1822) p. 21 gives O-shun-gu-lap as the self-designation of the Winebago Tribe. Is the -p just spurious? Alan From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 17 18:37:02 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:37:02 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: Or "nope" for 'no'. bob -----Original Message----- From: Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:33 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Hochank variant Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" with its article. I'd guess the -p may well be the same one we have in English "Yep" (for 'yes'), where the -p just represents the definitive closure of the oral cavity. Just a guess though. And, no, I don't think it's a pluralizer. :-) Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:29 AM To: Siouan Subject: Hochank variant J. Morse _Rep. to Secy. of War_ (1822) p. 21 gives O-shun-gu-lap as the self-designation of the Winebago Tribe. Is the -p just spurious? Alan From mckay020 at umn.edu Tue Feb 17 19:38:47 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (cantemaza) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:38:47 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Reply In-Reply-To: <002501c3f57e$1c2f9270$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: Louis, The list is also being worked on here too. -Cantemaza de miye Louis Garcia wrote: >The treaty is in English. >It is printed in the St. Paul, MN newspaper for August or September1870. >I can identify the Spirit Lake and Lake Traverse Dakota leaders. >Mark Diedrich (Rochester, MN) say the Ojibway are all from White Earth, MN. >Alan Hartley has translated most of the names. >Later, >LouieG > >. > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 18 07:53:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:53:34 -0700 Subject: Hochank variant In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339EB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" > with its article. I believe the first vowel is long, i.e., hooc^aNk ~ hooc^aNg=ra. I'm not sure if there is more than an intrusive schwa between the final k and ra. For example, keec^aN'g=ra 'O (the) Turtle' is written by Lipkind (p. 39, No. 52) with -gra. Some forms do restore e between k and ga, e.g., was^c^iN'k 'rabbit' ~ was^c^iNge'ga 'the Rabbit', but this may be a property of ga. Not all forms do this, e.g., hinUnkc^ek 'son's wife' + ga => hinuNkc^eka 'my son's wife'. From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Wed Feb 18 13:05:55 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:05:55 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: Aloha all, Just an observation: In the three or four occassions that I heard Andy Thunder Cloud address the Nebraska Winnebago folks during powwow or other public venues, I distinctly heard the extended first vowel and the schwa between the final k and ra. However, in each instance, it was the first word in the speech or first in a new section of speech. In other words, it was being emphasized to call or renew the attention of the listener. I do not recall hearing the term within the body of the speech so cannot say if it loses vowel length and the schwa. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology-Geography University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: RE: Hochank variant > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" > > with its article. > > I believe the first vowel is long, i.e., hooc^aNk ~ hooc^aNg=ra. I'm not > sure if there is more than an intrusive schwa between the final k and ra. > For example, keec^aN'g=ra 'O (the) Turtle' is written by Lipkind (p. 39, > No. 52) with -gra. Some forms do restore e between k and ga, e.g., > was^c^iN'k 'rabbit' ~ was^c^iNge'ga 'the Rabbit', but this may be a > property of ga. Not all forms do this, e.g., hinUnkc^ek 'son's wife' + ga > => hinuNkc^eka 'my son's wife'. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 18 15:52:36 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:52:36 -0600 Subject: Hochunk HO Message-ID: As a monosyllabic noun, /ho:/ 'voice, fish' is always long. I don't know its status in the compound. As I recall from Miner, some of these automatically lengthened monosyllables lose their length in larger constructs. Others may not. It's an empirical question. As for the penultimate /a/of Hocangara, I assume "Dorsey's Law" vowels are "real" to speakers, and, according to Lipkind, short, unaccented /a/ is often [schwa] anyway. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Feb 18 17:27:47 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:27:47 EST Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: Re active and stative verbs in biclausal sentences: Crow handles this with the switch reference markers, so there would be no ambiguity. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 18 17:42:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:42:27 -0700 Subject: Hochunk HO In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DE6@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > As a monosyllabic noun, /ho:/ 'voice, fish' is always long. I don't > know its status in the compound. As I recall from Miner, some of these > automatically lengthened monosyllables lose their length in larger > constructs. Others may not. Actually, I had looked it up in Miner, if that helps. > It's an empirical question. As for the penultimate /a/of Hocangara, I > assume "Dorsey's Law" vowels are "real" to speakers, and, according to > Lipkind, short, unaccented /a/ is often [schwa] anyway. Of course, it's an empirical question, too, but I have the impression from various sets of examples I've seen over the years that schwa epenthesis in C=R enclitic boundary contexts like ...k=ra (usually written ...gra, I think) is alive and well and independent of Dorsey's Law epenthesis within stems. Of course, "Hochangara" is pretty well attested in English spellings, I think, but I understood the penultimate a to represent a schwa. I will definitely cede this point to anyone who has evidence demonstrating otherwise! I feel more than a little silly being the person answering Winnebago questions. I think Lipkind backs me up, but Lipkind's vowels are not always easy to interpret. I don't have Susman and in spite of the best efforts of Jimm and Bob the file copy of Miner's grammar that I have looks like it was written in Wingdings. You can get into Word Perfect, but you can't get out. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 18 17:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:58:37 -0700 Subject: Hochunk HO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > As a monosyllabic noun, /ho:/ 'voice, fish' is always long. I don't > > know its status in the compound. As I recall from Miner, some of these > > automatically lengthened monosyllables lose their length in larger > > constructs. Others may not. > > Actually, I had looked it up in Miner, if that helps. One way this could be analyze this is that the historical compound is *ho(o)'=thaNk, cf. OP hu(u)'=ttaNga. which, presumably is a calque or adapted loan, not an inherited cognate, of course. Assuming that initial accented syllable lengthen or are long, and at least other formerly accented initial syllables in Winnebago are regularly seen to be long, this would yield (with length) *hoo'c^haNk and then (accent shift) hooc^aN'k. This would parallel forms with outer instrumentals, boo...' forms, for example. Of course, it is important to realize that this model is pretty much conditioning independent. Perhaps *hoo'thaNk is so accented because long; perhaps it is long because so accented. The best way to determine this is to turn up forms with the same morphosyntax but CV=CV'... accent (CV=CVCV'... in modern Winnebago). There are actually some candidates in OP among the animal + body part compounds. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Feb 18 19:44:14 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:44:14 -0600 Subject: Hochunk HO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote (concerning @-epenthesis): > "Hochangara" is pretty well attested in English spellings With schwa or whatever-- Morse (1822) has O-shun-gu-lap. Schoolcraft (1853-4) has O-chunga-raw and Hochungara. Riggs (Dakota Grammar 1893) has HotcaNgara. Without the vowel (for what they're worth)-- Bowen (Map Brit. Amer. Plantations 1754) has Otchagros. Charlevoix (1761) has Otchagras. Alan From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Feb 20 21:46:55 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:46:55 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <51E3ABD6-60A7-11D8-BCC5-000A959BEA84@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Van is right about the problem in the book leading to these conclusions, but I've elicited contradictory data. Some speakers insist that the intransitive verb picks up the argument that matches in case with the transtitive verb; "The boy chased the deer and (x) was tired" can only mean "the deer was tired", whereas "The man saw the woman and ran away" can only mean that the man ran away. Other speakers tell me that you simply can't tell from the isolated sentence alone -- the example that was used for testing was "she started the car and shook", and you can't tell whether the driver or the car shook. As far as I know, these are all sentences with "na" as the conjunction; I haven't explored the use of "cha" here. My guess is you're going to get different judgements depending on the degree of dominance of Lak. over English; the first group of speakers I mentioned above were the most fluent I ever had the privilege of working with. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Robert VanValin wrote: > In my book 'Syntax' with R. LaPolla (CUP, 1997), I have a homework > problem in the grammatical relations chapter (pp. 311-13) using data I > collected back when I was working on my dissertation. It includes data > on the issues you raise. > > > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > > If the conjunction is 'na', then only 'the boy' can be interpreted as > the one who is tired; when the conjunction is 'cha', then it's possible > to interpret 'the deer' as the one who is tired. The different > interpretations seem to be a function of the different conjunctions. > > Van > > > *********** > Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. > Professor & Chair > Department of Linguistics > 609 Baldy Hall > University at Buffalo > The State University at New York > Buffalo, NY 14260 USA > Phone: 716-645-2177, ext. 713 > Fax: 716-645-3825 > VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU > http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/vanvalin.html From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 21 22:05:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:05:56 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: > Van is right about the problem in the book leading to these conclusions, > but I've elicited contradictory data. Some speakers insist that the > intransitive verb picks up the argument that matches in case with the > transtitive verb; "The boy chased the deer and (x) was tired" can only > mean "the deer was tired", whereas "The man saw the woman and ran away" > can only mean that the man ran away. That's certainly how some Australian languages work. And if the two subjects are of different transitivity, one of them has to be changed using an anti-passive in order that the cases match. The difference there, of course, is transitive vs. intransitive but I was interested in seeing if active vs. stative had the same sort of requirement. Apparently for some of David's speakers this was the case. > Other speakers tell me that you > simply can't tell from the isolated sentence alone -- the example that was > used for testing was "she started the car and shook", and you can't tell > whether the driver or the car shook. As far as I know, these are all > sentences with "na" as the conjunction; I haven't explored the use of > "cha" here. My guess is you're going to get different judgements > depending on the degree of dominance of Lak. over English; the first group > of speakers I mentioned above were the most fluent I ever had the > privilege of working with. I hope people will do the necessary research and find out the details. In order to do that, I'd recommend something like "The man chased the boy and X was tired". This avoids problems with degree of animacy and the problem that "deer don't get tired." Really interesting stuff. Bob From warr0120 at umn.edu Wed Feb 25 19:11:22 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:11:22 CST Subject: french grammar Message-ID: Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? It's listed on amazon.fr. Last time I tried I wasn't able to get it through ILL and it's been over a year (at least) since the library at the U of MN ordered it, but it still hasn't shown. I'd really like to see if it's good or not. 318 pages seems like a decent size for a grammar. Is it original work or a translation of something else? Is it accurate? Does anyone know him? Here's what is on the author's personal web page about the book (english translation in parentheses is mine): >>>> > Je parle Sioux/Lakota (I speak Sioux/Lakota) > Published by Editions du Rocher (Nuage Rouge) > "Les Sioux ont du sang fran�ais dans les veines" (The Sioux have French blood in their veins.) > La langue Sioux se compose de trois dialectes : le Dakota, le Lakota et le Nakota. Le Lakota est le plus r�pandu. C'est la deuxi�me langue am�rindienne apr�s le Navajo. (The Sioux language is composed of three dialects: the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota. The Lakota is the most widespread. It's the second american indian language after Navajo.) > L'alphabet Sioux est le m�me que le n�tre. Il ne manque que 6 lettres : d,f,q,r,v et x. Ils utilisent des petits signes suppl�mentaires au-dessus de certaines lettres. Cela change le son. Les phrases sont compos�es � l'envers. Par exemple, si vous dites:'Chaque jour, cette femme va � la ville' en lakota, �a donne : 'Jour chaque, femme la cette ville vers va' (The Sioux alphabet is the same as ours. There are only six letters missing: d,f,q,r,v, and x. They use extra little symbols above certain letters. That changes their sound. Sentences are put together backwards. For example, if you say "every day this woman goes to town" in lakota, you get "day every woman the this town to goes.") > Au d�but c'est une gymnastique qui n'est pas facile � apprendre. L'avantage du lakota c'est qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup de temps. le pass� est signal� par un petit mot avant le verbe. (At the start this is a trick that's not easy to learn. The advantage of lakota is that there aren't a lot of tenses. The past is marked by a small word before the verb.) > Il faut savoir que tous les Sioux ont du sang fran�ais dans les veines. Tout simplement parce que les Fran�ais qui ont peupl� la Louisiane, ont sympathis� avec les Sioux. Ces derniers les ont bien accueillis parce qu'ils venaient faire du troc. Et non pas leur voler leurs terres. (It must be known that the Sioux have French blood in their veins. It's just because the french that settled Louisiana got along with the Sioux. The latter welcomed them because they came to trade. And not to steal their land.) >>>>> http://www.1212.com/a/batteux/slim.html I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. Thanks in advance, Patrick From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 26 00:41:58 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:41:58 -0700 Subject: french grammar In-Reply-To: <200402251911.i1PJBMZJ013041@firefox.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? Never heard of Batteux or the grammar. But it looks like he's a jazz musician living in France, presumably of Dakota origin. > La langue Sioux se compose de trois dialectes : le Dakota, le Lakota et > le Nakota. Le Lakota est le plus répandu. C'est la deuxième langue > amérindienne après le Navajo. > (The Sioux language is composed of three dialects: the Dakota, Lakota, and > Nakota. The Lakota is the most widespread. It's the second american indian > language after Navajo.) I believe the implicit statistics are still correct. The Dakota Dialect Survey actually concluded that the three-way "dln" division over simplified the actual picture and that were more like five major dialects, Santee-Sisseton, Yankton-Yanktonais, Teton, Assiniboine, and Stoney. The first two are "d dialects" and the last two "n dialects," in traditional terms, but all five are about equally different. Well, Stoney is a little moreso, though Allan Taylor has a paper, published in a long ago Siouan Archives Newsletter if I recall correctly, that shows that Stoney in the 1700s was rather more like modern Assiniboine. There's a nice report on the Dakota Dialect Survey in "Sioux, Assiniboine, and Stoney dialects: a classification." Anthropological Linguistics (1992) 34:233-255. So, the main finding of the DDS is that lumping all d-using or n-using dialects together is a bit like lumping all r-less English dialects together. The other way in which the DDS classification differs from the historical depiction of Dakotan dialectology is in classifying Yanktonais with Yankton. Traditionally Yankton is lumped with Santee-Sisseston, and Yanktonais is lumped with Assiniboine and Stoney. I've sometimes wondered if the historical basis for the old approach was just that Yanktonais has -na in the name. David Rood once pointed to a bunch of us that -na(N) is the regular allomorph of the =daN DIMINUTIVE in Santee if the preceding vowel is nasalized. The Teton dialect has invariant =la. I don't recall the forms in Assiniboine or Stoney, but I think they were a bit more complex than just =na(N). However, this fine speculation aside, I think the Yankton vs. Yanktonais distinction is depicted in the sources as traditional, and presumably the Santee speakers who provided the traditional analysis of Dakotan divisions and dialects were well aware of the allomorphy of =daN in Santee. So there must be some other reason for the traditional distinction, perhaps reflecting political factors. > L'alphabet Sioux est le même que le nôtre. Il ne manque que 6 lettres : > d,f,q,r,v et x. Ils utilisent des petits signes supplémentaires au-dessus > de certaines lettres. Cela change le son. Les phrases sont composées à > l'envers. Par exemple, si vous dites:'Chaque jour, cette femme va à la > ville' en lakota, ça donne : 'Jour chaque, femme la cette ville vers va' > > (The Sioux alphabet is the same as ours. There are only six letters > missing: d,f,q,r,v, and x. They use extra little symbols above certain > letters. That changes their sound. Sentences are put together backwards. > For example, if you say "every day this woman goes to town" in lakota, you > get "day every woman the this town to goes.") An alphabet-oriented assessment of a language is usually a sure sign of a certain lack of linguistic sophistication, which might influence other aspects of the treatment. And, if the alphabet lacks d we can probably assume that M. Batteux is a Lakota speaker, though the author speaks of himself as French or English or European - a user of the full basic Latin alphabet. Maybe English, since French uses extra little symbols above certaines lettres, too. On the other hand, the observations on word order are pretty much in line with a certain amount of linguistic introspection. Notice that the distribution of articles changes to accord with Dakotan usage. Omaha speakers I dealt with during field work put it in much the same way, without going as far as examples. They felt that Omaha word order (SOV) was backwards of English (SVO) and vice versa. It's not quite as backward of English as it would be of Irish (VSO), but the characterization is close enough. > I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in > their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. It's a somewhat traditional way of speaking (in English and French) and thinking about a concept like mixed ancestry and French-Indian metis status. Having just thought about paraphrasing this in terms more anthropologically and physiologically sound I can attest that it's not easy to do without sounding like a politically correct weasel. I figure M. Batteux or his editor was writing for the target audience, which does not appear to be linguists. It is my understanding that there is something of a market for Dakota lessons in France. I have known of people - Dakota speakers and linguists, too - who were invited over to conduct lessons on a commercial basis. I don't know if anyone could get rich conducting anthro-tours and offering language lessons to interested Europeans (and (Euro-)Americans and Japanese), but it seems to me that there's a living there for a few Dakota-speakers with the right combination of showmanship and business acumen. I must be a long way from being the first person to think of that, and on reflection I can think of examples going as far back as the late 1800s, and not just Dakotas. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 08:15:53 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:15:53 -0000 Subject: french grammar In-Reply-To: <200402251911.i1PJBMZJ013041@firefox.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: I suppose there are a lot of Lakota surnames which are French in origin. Picotte and Bordeaux spring to mind. Perhaps that is the reasoning Bruce On 25 Feb 2004 at 13:11, Pat Warren wrote: Date sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:11:22 CST Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Pat Warren To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: french grammar > Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? > > I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in > their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. > > Thanks in advance, > Patrick > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 08:12:12 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:12:12 -0000 Subject: french grammar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I haven't read his grammar though I have had email contact with him. He seems a reasonable person and gave me the email address of another person in France interested in Lakotya. Bruce On 25 Feb 2004 at 17:41, Koontz John E wrote: Date sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:41:58 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Subject: Re: french grammar > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? > > Never heard of Batteux or the grammar. But it looks like he's a jazz > musician living in France, presumably of Dakota origin. > > > La langue Sioux se compose de trois dialectes : le Dakota, le Lakota et > > le Nakota. Le Lakota est le plus répandu. C'est la deuxième langue > > amérindienne après le Navajo. > > (The Sioux language is composed of three dialects: the Dakota, Lakota, and > > Nakota. The Lakota is the most widespread. It's the second american indian > > language after Navajo.) > > I believe the implicit statistics are still correct. The Dakota Dialect > Survey actually concluded that the three-way "dln" division over > simplified the actual picture and that were more like five major dialects, > Santee-Sisseton, Yankton-Yanktonais, Teton, Assiniboine, and Stoney. The > first two are "d dialects" and the last two "n dialects," in traditional > terms, but all five are about equally different. Well, Stoney is a little > moreso, though Allan Taylor has a paper, published in a long ago Siouan > Archives Newsletter if I recall correctly, that shows that Stoney in the > 1700s was rather more like modern Assiniboine. > > There's a nice report on the Dakota Dialect Survey in "Sioux, Assiniboine, > and Stoney dialects: a classification." Anthropological Linguistics > (1992) 34:233-255. > > So, the main finding of the DDS is that lumping all d-using or n-using > dialects together is a bit like lumping all r-less English dialects > together. > > The other way in which the DDS classification differs from the historical > depiction of Dakotan dialectology is in classifying Yanktonais with > Yankton. Traditionally Yankton is lumped with Santee-Sisseston, and > Yanktonais is lumped with Assiniboine and Stoney. I've sometimes wondered > if the historical basis for the old approach was just that Yanktonais has > -na in the name. David Rood once pointed to a bunch of us that -na(N) is > the regular allomorph of the =daN DIMINUTIVE in Santee if the preceding > vowel is nasalized. The Teton dialect has invariant =la. I don't recall > the forms in Assiniboine or Stoney, but I think they were a bit more > complex than just =na(N). However, this fine speculation aside, I think > the Yankton vs. Yanktonais distinction is depicted in the sources as > traditional, and presumably the Santee speakers who provided the > traditional analysis of Dakotan divisions and dialects were well aware of > the allomorphy of =daN in Santee. So there must be some other reason for > the traditional distinction, perhaps reflecting political factors. > > > L'alphabet Sioux est le même que le nôtre. Il ne manque que 6 lettres : > > d,f,q,r,v et x. Ils utilisent des petits signes supplémentaires au-dessus > > de certaines lettres. Cela change le son. Les phrases sont composées à > > l'envers. Par exemple, si vous dites:'Chaque jour, cette femme va à la > > ville' en lakota, ça donne : 'Jour chaque, femme la cette ville vers va' > > > > (The Sioux alphabet is the same as ours. There are only six letters > > missing: d,f,q,r,v, and x. They use extra little symbols above certain > > letters. That changes their sound. Sentences are put together backwards. > > For example, if you say "every day this woman goes to town" in lakota, you > > get "day every woman the this town to goes.") > > An alphabet-oriented assessment of a language is usually a sure sign of a > certain lack of linguistic sophistication, which might influence other > aspects of the treatment. And, if the alphabet lacks d we can probably > assume that M. Batteux is a Lakota speaker, though the author speaks of > himself as French or English or European - a user of the full basic Latin > alphabet. Maybe English, since French uses extra little symbols above > certaines lettres, too. > > On the other hand, the observations on word order are pretty much in line > with a certain amount of linguistic introspection. Notice that the > distribution of articles changes to accord with Dakotan usage. Omaha > speakers I dealt with during field work put it in much the same way, > without going as far as examples. They felt that Omaha word order (SOV) > was backwards of English (SVO) and vice versa. It's not quite as backward > of English as it would be of Irish (VSO), but the characterization is > close enough. > > > I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in > > their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. > > It's a somewhat traditional way of speaking (in English and French) and > thinking about a concept like mixed ancestry and French-Indian metis > status. Having just thought about paraphrasing this in terms more > anthropologically and physiologically sound I can attest that it's not > easy to do without sounding like a politically correct weasel. I figure > M. Batteux or his editor was writing for the target audience, which does > not appear to be linguists. > > It is my understanding that there is something of a market for Dakota > lessons in France. I have known of people - Dakota speakers and > linguists, too - who were invited over to conduct lessons on a commercial > basis. I don't know if anyone could get rich conducting anthro-tours and > offering language lessons to interested Europeans (and (Euro-)Americans > and Japanese), but it seems to me that there's a living there for a few > Dakota-speakers with the right combination of showmanship and business > acumen. I must be a long way from being the first person to think of > that, and on reflection I can think of examples going as far back as the > late 1800s, and not just Dakotas. > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 14:04:17 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:04:17 -0500 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). Thank you, Michael McCafferty From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Feb 27 14:52:06 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:52:06 -0600 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's > term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in > the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). I would bet on an Iroquois source. The following is from a treaty with the Senecas in Quebec in 1666 in Docs. Colonial Hist. NY 9.50 (in Eng. translation--no French original): "they paint some red calumets, peace calumets on the tomb." The term is common in French and English docs in DCHNY, usually in Iroquoian contexts. Alan From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 27 15:43:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:43:50 -0600 Subject: calumet de paix Message-ID: Haven't seen it in any of the 19th century Kansa or Quapaw documentation. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:52 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: calumet de paix > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan > language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of > "paix" (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace > pipe). I would bet on an Iroquois source. The following is from a treaty with the Senecas in Quebec in 1666 in Docs. Colonial Hist. NY 9.50 (in Eng. translation--no French original): "they paint some red calumets, peace calumets on the tomb." The term is common in French and English docs in DCHNY, usually in Iroquoian contexts. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Feb 27 16:18:50 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:18:50 -0700 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's > term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in > the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). The concept of "peace," itself is perhaps somewhat difficult. I remember looking for this fairly recently. This is a complex collection of associated ideas, the details of which seem to me to depend on a "Western" and Christian context. The cultural dependence is perhaps not as obvious or absolute as something like 'junk mail' and to some extent my difficulties may stem from awkward or literal translations. The 'peace' forms I tracked down in Omaha-Ponca seemed to refer to mental peace, or calm, and although this might certainly be connected with not fearing an attack that didn't seem to be the emphasis. Peace in the sense of an absence of declared war or an agreement not to fight, among other things, seems harder to find a term for. I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in a state of war?') that might be relevant. On the other hand, I believe I have seen references to agreements not to fight being concluded. From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Fri Feb 27 18:03:28 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:03:28 -0800 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John's take on this seems right. The Northern Iroquoian languages have a word ske:no? (both vowels nasalized), or similar forms, which means something like "well-being". It gets applied to good health, the absence of strife, having plenty of food, etc. Nowadays it's sometimes translated "peace", but it has a broader meaning than simply the absence of war. And in fact both peace and war, as we understand them, weren't quite the way the Iroquois understood things in pre-contact times. Obviously there were raiding parties and so on, but European-style warfare was something different. I'm not familiar with a "peace" morpheme occurring in an Iroquoian word for "pipe". Wally --On Friday, February 27, 2004 9:18 AM -0700 Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan >> language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" >> (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). > > The concept of "peace," itself is perhaps somewhat difficult. I remember > looking for this fairly recently. This is a complex collection of > associated ideas, the details of which seem to me to depend on a "Western" > and Christian context. The cultural dependence is perhaps not as obvious > or absolute as something like 'junk mail' and to some extent my > difficulties may stem from awkward or literal translations. The 'peace' > forms I tracked down in Omaha-Ponca seemed to refer to mental peace, or > calm, and although this might certainly be connected with not fearing an > attack that didn't seem to be the emphasis. Peace in the sense of an > absence of declared war or an agreement not to fight, among other things, > seems harder to find a term for. > > I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there > is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a > formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East > Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered > 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There > are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in > a state of war?') that might be relevant. > > On the other hand, I believe I have seen references to agreements not to > fight being concluded. > From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Fri Feb 27 19:04:58 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:04:58 -0600 Subject: calumet de paix Message-ID: The term "peace pipe" is of non-Native origin. For Native communities and in the language, there were no other pipes in use, other than the Sacred Pipes. While the people may speak of using a/ the Pipe, the context was that it is to be used in a sacred manner, on appropriate occassions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mccafferty" To: Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:04 AM Subject: calumet de paix > > > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's > term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in > the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). > > Thank you, > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Feb 27 20:36:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:36:11 -0700 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: <002701c3fd64$a145f7e0$0d430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > The term "peace pipe" is of non-Native origin. For Native communities and > in the language, there were no other pipes in use, other than the Sacred > Pipes. While the people may speak of using a/ the Pipe, the context was > that it is to be used in a sacred manner, on appropriate occassions. Actually, that's a good point. If the Iroquois pipe ceremonies had anything in common with the Siouan ones, the French may have rather misunderstood the whole "peace pipe" thing. The pipe wasn't so much a safeconduct as an implement used in adopting someone, and through that, establishing friendly relations between your clan and theirs. I suppose that these friendly relations might have been transitive to some degree, and that a pipe or set of pipes might have been emblematic of the situation, sort of like adoption papers with official stamps and ribbons. Or perhaps presenting a pipe was simply an offer to perform an adoption. I'm actually pretty vague on the details in the Omaha historical context. (The "pipes" used in this context among the Omaha are actually just ornamented pipe-like objects, not proper pipes, but practices elsewhere might differ considerably in detail.) I think that some archaeologists view ceremonies of this nature as the likely underpinnings of phenomena like the Hopewellian Exchange Network. So perhaps European exploring was perceived as joining or setting up an exchange network. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 22:53:20 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: <2269750.1077876208@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: Oh... sorry. I didn't see your last sentence. "Never mind" -Emily Latella Best, Michael On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > John's take on this seems right. The Northern Iroquoian languages have a > word ske:no? (both vowels nasalized), or similar forms, which means > something like "well-being". It gets applied to good health, the absence of > strife, having plenty of food, etc. Nowadays it's sometimes translated > "peace", but it has a broader meaning than simply the absence of war. And > in fact both peace and war, as we understand them, weren't quite the way > the Iroquois understood things in pre-contact times. Obviously there were > raiding parties and so on, but European-style warfare was something > different. I'm not familiar with a "peace" morpheme occurring in an > Iroquoian word for "pipe". > > Wally > > --On Friday, February 27, 2004 9:18 AM -0700 Koontz John E > wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > >> Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan > >> language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" > >> (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). > > > > The concept of "peace," itself is perhaps somewhat difficult. I remember > > looking for this fairly recently. This is a complex collection of > > associated ideas, the details of which seem to me to depend on a "Western" > > and Christian context. The cultural dependence is perhaps not as obvious > > or absolute as something like 'junk mail' and to some extent my > > difficulties may stem from awkward or literal translations. The 'peace' > > forms I tracked down in Omaha-Ponca seemed to refer to mental peace, or > > calm, and although this might certainly be connected with not fearing an > > attack that didn't seem to be the emphasis. Peace in the sense of an > > absence of declared war or an agreement not to fight, among other things, > > seems harder to find a term for. > > > > I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there > > is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a > > formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East > > Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered > > 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There > > are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in > > a state of war?') that might be relevant. > > > > On the other hand, I believe I have seen references to agreements not to > > fight being concluded. > > > > > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Feb 28 13:08:34 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:08:34 -0000 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233A04@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Haven't seen it in, Lakota, but there is the related expression chanli yus^ka 'untie the tobacco bundles' signifying 'to make peace' and later on wicazo yuthanpi 'touching the pen' signifying to make a treaty (with the whites) Bruce On 27 Feb 2004 at 9:43, Rankin, Robert L wrote: Date sent: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:43:50 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "Rankin, Robert L" To: Subject: RE: calumet de paix > Haven't seen it in any of the 19th century Kansa or Quapaw > documentation. > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:52 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: calumet de paix > > > > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan > > language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of > > "paix" (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace > > pipe). > > I would bet on an Iroquois source. The following is from a treaty with > the Senecas in Quebec in 1666 in Docs. Colonial Hist. NY 9.50 (in Eng. > translation--no French original): "they paint some red calumets, peace > calumets on the tomb." The term is common in French and English docs in > DCHNY, usually in Iroquoian contexts. > > Alan > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Feb 28 13:27:45 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:27:45 -0000 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting about 'war'. I have seen a phrase ob kicis unpi 'they were figting them' meaning they were at war with them. Generally also the phrase thokkiciyapi 'consider eachother enemies ' is heard, but as in many societies 'foreigners' or 'strangers' were generall 'enemies' unless som special arrangement had been made. Or at least that is the picture that emerges from texts such as those of Buechel, Deloria and Bushotter. In arabic too the word qom meaning in one sense 'people' also means 'enemies', or at least among the bedouin that is so. Bruce > I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there > is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a > formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East > Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered > 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There > are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in > a state of war?') that might be relevant. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Feb 1 02:20:23 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:20:23 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Bob's comments about prairie and plains makes me think of something I saw > recently in a French trader's itinerary, where he calls the the wet > prairie of the Kankakee a "plaine" (actually spelled "plenne") and then in > parentheses, to explain what he means, he says "pays bas," which means > "lowland". From this account it appears that in the West, Frenchmen were > using "plains" to mean something slightly different from what is typically > taken as the meaning of the word. The original meaning of 'plain' in English was similar, and its sense was extended when English-speakers encountered the Plains. The Dict. of Amer. English defines the earlier sense (from 1608 in N. Amer.) as "a comparatively small, well-defined tract of level land free or nearly free from trees and readily cultivable" and the later sense (from 1755, born in N. Amer.) as "an extensive region of level or rolling treeless country; prairie." William Clark uses it explicitly for what we now call a flood-plain (a. below), and also in the Great Plains sense (d. or e. below). DAE's discussion of PRAIRIE is more detailed: 1. A level or rolling area of land, destitute of trees and usually covered with grass. {a1682, of a meadow in France} This word has been applied to areas of different types in different parts of the country, giving rise to the following specific senses: a. A meadow, esp. one alongside a river; a relatively small area of low-lying grassland. (See also bottom, swamp, wet prairie.) b. A grass-covered opening in a forest; a savannah. (See alo high, ridge, upland prairie.) c. A level open area about a town, house, etc. d. A broad expanse of level or rolling land in the Indiana, Illinois, and Mississippi Valley country, covered by coarse grass. (See also grand, open prairie.) e. An extensive plateau to the west of the Mississippi. In pl., frequently referring to the entire area between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. (See also great, hog-wallow, open, rolling, western prairie.) My Lewis-and-Clark enry for PLAIN: PLAIN A relatively level, usually grass-covered, mostly treeless tract of land, nearly synonymous with PRAIRIE in the journals. (Clark translates the French Prairie du Chien as the Dog Plains [2.458] and virtually equates 'plain' and 'prairie' in his entries below.) A plain can be large or small, low land or high. As with prairie, the captains? use of the word expanded, after they reached the Mississippi, to include not only the grassy, cultivable BOTTOM lands along the rivers--now called flood plains--but also the seemingly limitless higher and drier grasslands we call the (Great) Plains. the plains and woodlands are here [near St. Louis] indiscriminately interspersed [20 May 04 ML 2.240] the plain on which it [St. Charles, Missouri] stands is narrow [20 May 04 ML 2.241] on the L[arboard]. S[ide]. is a butifull Bottom Prarie whuch will Contain about 2000 acres [10 Jul 04 WC 2.364] on the L. S. is a butifull bottom Plain of about 2000 acres [10 Jul 04 WC 2.365] Came Suddenly into an open and bound less Prarie, I Say bound less because I could not See the extent of the plain in any Derection..this Prarie was Covered with grass about 18 Inches or 2 feat high [19 Jul 04 WC 2.394] Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 1 08:50:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:50:39 -0700 Subject: udhaN' 'to hold' (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I didn't mention this yesterday because I thought it was a different > word/interpretation from the 'island' meaning. Now I wonder though: > could an island be something 'held' by surrounding water? If we can have > a land-locked lake in English, how about a (water)-held land in Dhegiha? I'm now wondering if it's possible that udhaN' in this sense 'to hold' is simply a homophone (as far as it's root ins concerned): Os odhiNge, odhaN (OP-ism?); Ks oyiNge; IO unaNge; WI honaN'k 'help carry or walk' There is no trace of simple uthe or uhe. The positional set, recall, is dhaN 'round', the 'vertical, long', he (cf. khe) 'horizontal, flat'. We do find *o-k-POS positional verbs. We have ugdhaN', ugi'gdhaN 'put (own) in' (put robe on, don robe, dress in robe, insert head in buffalo pelvis, put meat in mouth, place severed head on cradle board) ui'gdhaN 'place something in pot for someone' z^e'=gdhaN 'put in curved object to roast or put stone on fire' There are also, for the: ugdhe' 'put in' (of tail in hole in ice, arrow point in shaft, arrow in quiver) (k + the => gdhe) There doesn't seem to be an ukhe per se. Possibly related to (k)he, and referring to lying crosswise: u?aNhe 'put in' (of plume in hair, boat in water, meat in mouth, meat in bowl, turtle in hot water, body in sling, baby on craddle board in wrappings, place body of coyote in wagon, corn in crib) u?aN(he?) 'put wood on fire' Finally, non-positional, and referring to inserting or placing in an enclosed area: uz^i 'put in bag, load musket, load pipe, put corn in soup, put people in darkness, body in bag, put horse in corral, load boat with goods, put hay in wagon, ' ugi'z^i 'put one's own in, put in one's own' From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Feb 1 13:16:37 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:16:37 +0100 Subject: prairie - plains Message-ID: That's what I found at Douglas Harper's prairie - 17c., from Fr. prairie, from O.Fr. praerie, from V.L. *prataria,from L. pratum "meadow," originally "a hollow." The word existed in M.E. as prayere, but was lost and reborrowed to describe the American plains. Interestingly, the original semantics doesn't seem to be 'grass' but 'hollow (spot)', maybe referring to 'wet/watery land' -> 'vegatation/grass' plain - 13c., from O.Fr. plain, from L. planus "flat, even, level," from PIE*pla- "flat." Sense of "smooth" is earliest in Eng., meanings of "simple, sincere, ordinary" are 14c. Of appearance, as a euphemism for "ill-favored, ugly" it dates from 1749. Plains of the American Midwest first so called 1684. L. planum was used for "level ground" but much more common was campus. Cf. also Italian: 'piano', Spanish: 'llano' (also used in the southern U.S.) As for Dakota, Buechel S.J. has: blabla'ta - [B.: an upland plain] [R.B.: rolling prairie, hills and levels] fr. blayA - > bla'ye [R.B.:= a plain]| [R.B.:= level] iyo'blaye - [B.: a plain extending from, as from a hill] izo' - [B.: an upland plain that is a peninsula] makxo'blaye - [B.: a plain] obla'ye - [B.: a level place, a plaint a valley]R.B.: a plain, a level place] oka'blaye - [B.: a level place, a plain], cf. blaska'/flat akhi'c^ipa - [B.: a flat tableland that lies higher than a creek] I wonder why the French term 'prairie' wasn't adopted, since the Natives' relationship with the early French immigrants were comparably close (maybe due to their intimate contacts as e.g. trappers, with intermarriages etc. - cf. Native last names like Peltier, Deloria <- Des Lauriers). Yet, one can imagine that the land they lived on and their very culture was based on meant too much to them to refer to it by a foreign term. Alfred http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Feb 1 15:25:09 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:25:09 -0600 Subject: prairie - plains In-Reply-To: <401CFC35.8040801@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred W. T?ting wrote: > I wonder why the French term 'prairie' wasn't adopted, since the > Natives' relationship with the early French immigrants were comparably > close (maybe due to their intimate contacts as e.g. trappers, with > intermarriages etc. - cf. Native last names like Peltier, Deloria <- Des > Lauriers). La Prairie is an Ojibway surname, at least in northern Minnesota. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 1 22:50:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:50:19 -0700 Subject: prairie - plains In-Reply-To: <401CFC35.8040801@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: ... > As for Dakota, Buechel S.J. has: > fr. blayA - > bla'ye [R.B.:= a plain]| [R.B.:= level] > iyo'blaye - [B.: a plain extending from, as from a hill] > izo' - [B.: an upland plain that is a peninsula] > makxo'blaye - [B.: a plain] > obla'ye - [B.: a level place, a plaint a valley]R.B.: a plain, a level > place] > oka'blaye - [B.: a level place, a plain], cf. blaska'/flat ... > I wonder why the French term 'prairie' wasn't adopted, since the > Natives' relationship with the early French immigrants were comparably > close (maybe due to their intimate contacts as e.g. trappers, with > intermarriages etc. - cf. Native last names like Peltier, Deloria <- Des > Lauriers). Yet, one can imagine that the land they lived on and their > very culture was based on meant too much to them to refer to it by a > foreign term. It doesn't seem likely to be a candidate for borrowing, except in names, but I was kidding Bob Rankin that Kaw for prairie would be bleye (< [preiri]). I suppose that bleya would be the form of the same joke in Dakota. However, the *pra 'flat' element, usually with extensions, is about as well distributed in Siouan as *pla is in IE. In regard to: > prairie - 17c., from Fr. prairie, from O.Fr. praerie, from V.L. > *prataria,from L. pratum "meadow," originally "a hollow." ... > Interestingly, the original semantics doesn't seem to be 'grass' but > 'hollow (spot)', maybe referring to 'wet/watery land' -> > 'vegatation/grass' There is a similar concatenation of ideas in Omaha-Ponca with respect to hollows and lowlands around streams: JOD 90:142.5 S^i e'd=ua'thaN wiN maNa' wathi's^ka uxdhu'xa=xti idhe'=dhe=xti Again next a bank creek hollow very it sends very dhi'giaghe= tta=i=the they make for you will surely In the next challenge they will probably face you with a creek bank that falls off steeply. Which continues, after some deails of invoking aid: JOD 90:143.3/2 is^ta hni'p?iNze=daN uxdhu'xa=khe a'dhagaz^ade=tte e'dhe eyes you shut during hollow the you will stride over indeed which shows that the hollow (with khe for flat, horizontally extended things) refers not to a hollowing of one bank, but to the whole floodplain or ravine. JOD 90:249.7 Ha'ghige=ama tti'xiNde uxdhu'xa ugdhiN'=tta=akha ha Haghige gorge hollow he will sit in DECL Haghige will sit in a deep gorge. (Interesting that the subject article is ama, while the future auxiliary is akha.) Continuing: JOD 90:249.8 Uxghu'xa ugdhiN'= de wani'tta gat?e= ma Hollow sitting in a beasts killed by falling the gaN wa'dhathe gdhiN=tta=akha. so he eats them he will sit (Unexpectedly) sitting in the hollow, he will eat the animals that are killed by falling into it. In short, he's using a ravine, or creek-hollowed area, as a deadfall. However, a "hollow" is not a broad plain: JOD 90:419.16/17 E'gidhe wathi's^ka=akha ttaNga'=dheha=i. Uxdhu'xa=baz^i. At length creek the spread out it was not hollow Xa'de ha. Dhi'xdhe s^ku'be basaN agdha=i= khe. Grass DECL canes deep pushing among they went home EVID Finally, the floodplains opened out. It was no longer a ravine. There was grass. They had headed homeward through thick canes. Another word that Dorsey renders 'hollow' is in a placename: 90:454.13 HaNdhi' tti uspe'=khe Henry House Hollow (I suspect Henry here is really Henri.) This seems to be a sort of swale, perhaps abrupt. Uspe'= daN=s^te e'gihe i=dhe' a sunken place perhaps headlong he has gone 90:436.17 Wathi's^ka=khe uspe' aNgu'gdhiN=i Creek the a sunken place we sat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 2 06:01:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:01:29 -0700 Subject: udhaN' 'to hold' (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I'm now wondering if it's possible that udhaN' in this sense 'to hold' is > simply a homophone (as far as it's root ins concerned): Os odhiNge, odhaN > (OP-ism?); Ks oyiNge; IO unaNge; Wi honaN'k 'help carry or walk'. Clarifying my remark above, I didn't find a Quapaw or Dakotan form. In the former case this probably reflects the shortage of information on Quapaw. The Winnebago form here is a little problematic, due to the gloss. The iN vowels are a bit awkward in Osage and Kaw, but the glossing is straightforward and the rest of the match seems perfect. OP truncates another similar -kE form, 'to talk', cf. OP udha' 'to tell', Os odha'ke. I don't know of any other examples off-hand, so it's a bit early to talk about a rule. I'm a little bothered by the mechanics of 'in' + 'round shaped' => 'take hold of', though it's not really so unreasonable. What bothers me is not so much the semantics, in fact, as two other factors. First, the lack of comparable forms for the other shapes (no *othe, *o(k)he). Second, u < o* doesn't usually act as a transitivizer, though it can redirect transitivity. So, anyway, I doubt this form is tightly linked with dhaN in OP, though it may well trace to PS *raNk-e 'sit'. I looked for a Dakotan member of this possible set, but the best I could come up with was naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', but, as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a morpheme for 'two'. Perhaps it is 'clasping on' a sort of two-sided operation. It does seem to be a sort of relict, a bound-form-only participle in both shape and distribution. Perhaps some of the Dakota specialists know more about anuNk or things like it? I didn't see anything plausible in Mandan but raNke 'sit', so I didn't look further. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 2 06:50:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:50:51 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > khe ihe=...dhe > > (The i here is probably not a locative, however.) > > I'm surprised. It certainly "feels" like one to me. > Is there evidence from other languages against the > i- dative interpretation? There are two sorts of evidence against i as a locative - instrumenal, dative or otherwise - though I admit that I initially took this as a locative myself, and we are lacking evidence of the most desirable sort - a case of, say, A12 or P1 aN coming up against the i and not doing the standard aNdhaN thing that characterizes the locative i. The first kind of evidence is internal (and applies throughout Dhegiha, as far as I know). It happens that idhaN, ithe, and ihe occur frequently in causatives (form=...dhe) in the sense 'put and object of such and such a shape down' or 'put an object positioned in such and such a configuration'. However, they also occur alone and with causatives in the sense 'be positioned; begin; do suddenly; do suddenly and repeatedly', and in all these situations they alternate with thi-forms like thidhaN, thithe, or thihe. And we also see some cases with hi initial in such sequences. So it appears that i alternates with thi and hi, which are clearly motion verbs ('to arrive here' and 'to arrive there'). Thus, it seems likely that it is a motion verb itself, and, of course, there is i 'to come'. However, dhe 'to go' never occurs in this context, so there are some oddities to the slot. The second kind of evidence is comparative. In Dakotan equivalents of the i forms you generaly see uN, e.g., uNgnahela 'suddenly', where I think the initial uNgna matches igdhaN. I am not positive of this, and the OP i matches i across Dhegiha and in IO, all places where u might be expected, if i is from *u. In general, however, I think the first set of evidence is fairly conclusive. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 2 18:10:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:10:15 -0600 Subject: udhaN' 'to hold' Message-ID: > I'm now wondering if it's possible that udhaN' in this sense 'to hold' > is simply a homophone (as far as it's root ins concerned): Os > odhiNge, odhaN (OP-ism?); Ks oyiNge; IO unaNge; Wi honaN'k 'help carry > or walk'. I haven't been following the udhon discussion closely, so I apologize if this is either obvious or repetitious. The alternation/variation of the vowels aN/iN in the same root is characteristic ONLY of positionals as far as I've been able to determine. The 'sitting' root *raN-(ke) has doublets in *riN-(ke) in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. In conjugating 'be sitting' Dakotan has both maNke/naNke and miNke/niNke in the 1st and 2nd sg. The 'standing' root participates only to a much lesser degree, but there is a hiiN- root in some languages in addition to, or replacing, the haN- root. > Clarifying my remark above, I didn't find a Quapaw or Dakotan form. In the former case this probably reflects the shortage of information on Quapaw. The Winnebago form here is a little problematic, due to the gloss. Quapaw /onaN'/ 'grasp, hold, seize'. ObnaN, ottaN in 1st/2nd persons. Bob From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Feb 2 19:32:32 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:32:32 +0100 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: >I looked for a Dakotan member of this possible set, but the best I could come up with was naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', but, as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a morpheme for 'two'. << I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k where the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], the initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] 'Wei?kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 2 20:02:35 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:02:35 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: In Kansa and Osage the initial V in these forms is never /u/ (U-umlaut), so the motion verb would presumably not be (h)u 'come', but one of the others. BOB > There are two sorts of evidence against i as a locative - instrumenal, dative or otherwise - though I admit that I initially took this as a locative myself, and we are lacking evidence of the most desirable sort - a case of, say, A12 or P1 aN coming up against the i and not doing the standard aNdhaN thing that characterizes the locative i. > The first kind of evidence is internal (and applies throughout Dhegiha, as far as I know). It happens that idhaN, ithe, and ihe occur frequently in causatives (form=...dhe) in the sense 'put and object of such and such a shape down' or 'put an object positioned in such and such a configuration'. However, they also occur alone and with causatives in the sense 'be positioned; begin; do suddenly; do suddenly and repeatedly', and in all these situations they alternate with thi-forms like thidhaN, thithe, or thihe. And we also see some cases with hi initial in such sequences. So it appears that i alternates with thi and hi, which are clearly motion verbs ('to arrive here' and 'to arrive there'). Thus, it seems likely that it is a motion verb itself, and, of course, there is i 'to come'. However, dhe 'to go' never occurs in this context, so there are some oddities to the slot. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Feb 2 20:03:18 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:03:18 -0800 Subject: anuNg - nupa In-Reply-To: <401EA5D0.4040504@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k >where the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], >the initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] >'Wei?kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, but I could be wrong. My Lakota speaker, on at least two occasions, etymologized anuNk[h?]asaN 'bald eagle' as 'white on both ends/sides', which is semantically very appropriate, of course. I'm pretty sure that I have heard the form anuNk[h?]a-taN 'from both sides' sometime. -taN means 'from', and my guess is that anuNk[h?]a- is the full form of the lexical root that appears in truncated form in the name for Deloria's mythical character AnuNk-Ite 'Double FAce' and in other compounds. Thus: no need to analyze -[h?]a, at least for now, unless someone else comes up with compelling reasons for treating -[?]a as an independent element. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Feb 2 20:47:44 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:47:44 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: > In general, however, I think the first set of evidence is fairly > conclusive. I agree, and would count myself newly convinced. I remember about a year ago there was a discussion about [verb of motion]+[another verb] combinations, like "come help" or "go get drunk" in English. I've forgotten the jargon for this. It almost looks like we might have had that sort of situation using positionals for the second verb. Then the result of that becomes a descriptor of a condition, which can thus be fed as the lexical concept into a causative in these cases. Thoughts? Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for owner-siouan at lists.c 'prairie'?) olorado.edu 02/02/2004 12:50 AM Please respond to siouan > > khe ihe=...dhe > > (The i here is probably not a locative, however.) > > I'm surprised. It certainly "feels" like one to me. > Is there evidence from other languages against the > i- dative interpretation? There are two sorts of evidence against i as a locative - instrumenal, dative or otherwise - though I admit that I initially took this as a locative myself, and we are lacking evidence of the most desirable sort - a case of, say, A12 or P1 aN coming up against the i and not doing the standard aNdhaN thing that characterizes the locative i. The first kind of evidence is internal (and applies throughout Dhegiha, as far as I know). It happens that idhaN, ithe, and ihe occur frequently in causatives (form=...dhe) in the sense 'put and object of such and such a shape down' or 'put an object positioned in such and such a configuration'. However, they also occur alone and with causatives in the sense 'be positioned; begin; do suddenly; do suddenly and repeatedly', and in all these situations they alternate with thi-forms like thidhaN, thithe, or thihe. And we also see some cases with hi initial in such sequences. So it appears that i alternates with thi and hi, which are clearly motion verbs ('to arrive here' and 'to arrive there'). Thus, it seems likely that it is a motion verb itself, and, of course, there is i 'to come'. However, dhe 'to go' never occurs in this context, so there are some oddities to the slot. The second kind of evidence is comparative. In Dakotan equivalents of the i forms you generaly see uN, e.g., uNgnahela 'suddenly', where I think the initial uNgna matches igdhaN. I am not positive of this, and the OP i matches i across Dhegiha and in IO, all places where u might be expected, if i is from *u. In general, however, I think the first set of evidence is fairly conclusive. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Feb 2 21:20:45 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:20:45 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: Bob wrote: > In Kansa and Osage the initial V in these forms is never /u/ (U-umlaut), > so the motion verb would presumably not be (h)u 'come', but one of the > others. BOB Oops! Maybe I should have waited for more commentary before completely conceding! As far as I know, there are just four basic verbs of motion available: MVS *re, OP dhe, 'go' *u, i, 'come' *i, (?) hi, 'get there' *thi, thi, 'get here' (I may have this list gurbled up a bit. The MVS for the second and third now seem doubtful.) So what other options do we have, if not the 'come' form? Rory From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Feb 2 21:23:48 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:23:48 +0100 Subject: anunk - nupa Message-ID: >I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, but I could be wrong. [...]<< I didn't regard it as an aspiration here either, but thought of [anuN'k-h^a-saN], raising the problem of what is meant by [h^a']. The (common?) translation by "white on both ends/sides" doesn't seem to be too convincing given that the bird's head and neck being white on top and all around (and not only "on both sides/ends"). Can it be that _ha_ [h^a'] is some - maybe abbreviated - form I'm too awkward to retrieve in dictionaries? Alfred From napshawin at msn.com Mon Feb 2 21:54:52 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:54:52 -0600 Subject: anunk - nupa Message-ID: FOR WHAT ITS WORTH ANUKXA means 'at each end' on each side think of all the situations that can have two opposite ends san means whitish, like in elders hair when it finally all gets that certain color hope this helps, Violet >From: "Alfred W. T?ting" >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: anunk - nupa >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:23:48 +0100 > > >I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is >aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, >but I could be wrong. [...]<< > >I didn't regard it as an aspiration here either, but thought of >[anuN'k-h^a-saN], raising the problem of what is meant by [h^a']. >The (common?) translation by "white on both ends/sides" doesn't seem to be >too convincing given that the bird's head and neck being white on top and >all around (and not only "on both sides/ends"). Can it be that _ha_ [h^a'] >is some - maybe abbreviated - form I'm too awkward to retrieve in >dictionaries? > >Alfred > _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From napshawin at msn.com Mon Feb 2 22:01:10 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:01:10 -0600 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: WHILE IT DOESN'T EXPLICTLY SAY THE WORD FOR TWO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD, ANUNKXA, on both sides, on each side etc, like at the top and bottom, opposing sides, only two sides, head-tail, right-left, above-below, on top-on bottom, so namp anunkxa yuza hypothetically, i went to shake the hand (one) of a grieving person, and felt really sorry when i saw him/her, i would take his/her hand in both of mine and slightly rub in to show my sympathy... Violet naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', but, >as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a morpheme for 'two'. << > >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k where >the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], the >initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) > >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] >'Wei?kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? > >Alfred > _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up ? fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1 From jfu at centrum.cz Mon Feb 2 22:03:52 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:03:52 -0500 Subject: anunk - nupa In-Reply-To: <401EBFE4.90603@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: > Alfred W. T?tin > I didn't regard it as an aspiration here either, but thought of > [anuN'k-h^a-saN], raising the problem of what is meant by [h^a']. > The (common?) translation by "white on both ends/sides" doesn't seem to > be too convincing given that the bird's head and neck being white on top > and all around (and not only "on both sides/ends"). Can it be that _ha_ > [h^a'] is some - maybe abbreviated - form I'm too awkward to retrieve in > dictionaries? anuNkhasaN anuNkha - 'on both sides' saN - 'whitish' This refers to the fact that the head and the tail of the eagle are white. Jan Ullrich From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 2 23:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:58:37 -0700 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: Posted for David, who is having computer troubles. -----Original Message----- From: David S. Rood [mailto:rood at colorado.edu] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:48 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: anuNg - nupa Regina, Buechel's entries for 'bald eagle' are ambiguous (plain k, no diacritic), but he has an aspiraction mark on anukhataN 'on both sides'. I would be very suspicious of relating this to nupa 'two' because I'm not aware of any p>k changes this unconditionally. I have always assumed that this was the first word in the "Double Face" name, as you said. David -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of REGINA PUSTET Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:03 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: anuNg - nupa >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k >where the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], >the initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] >'Wei_kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? I'm not exactly sure if the k in the Lakota word for 'bald eagle' is aspirated -- off the top of my head, I don't remember an aspiration here, but I could be wrong. My Lakota speaker, on at least two occasions, etymologized anuNk[h?]asaN 'bald eagle' as 'white on both ends/sides', which is semantically very appropriate, of course. I'm pretty sure that I have heard the form anuNk[h?]a-taN 'from both sides' sometime. -taN means 'from', and my guess is that anuNk[h?]a- is the full form of the lexical root that appears in truncated form in the name for Deloria's mythical character AnuNk-Ite 'Double FAce' and in other compounds. Thus: no need to analyze -[h?]a, at least for now, unless someone else comes up with compelling reasons for treating -[?]a as an independent element. Regina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 00:17:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:17:00 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DD4@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > In Kansa and Osage the initial V in these forms is never /u/ (U-umlaut), > so the motion verb would presumably not be (h)u 'come', but one of the > others. BOB Yes, this is an important point, and this is why I pointed out the unexpected correspondences in the rest of Dhegiha (though u > i also in Quapaw, actually) and IO. I'm afraid that point got lost at the bottom of the note: > The second kind of evidence is comparative. In Dakotan equivalents of > the i forms you generaly see uN, e.g., uNgnahela 'suddenly', where I > think the initial uNgna matches igdhaN. I am not positive of this, and > the OP i matches i across Dhegiha and in IO, all places where u might be > expected, if i is from *u. So, in short, if this is a verb of motion, it's an unusual one found only in this context. Or we have to conclude that we have two patterns of this kind of auxiliary: VERB-MOTION-ARRIVAL + POSITIONAL i + POSITIONAL The syntax is a little more complex than this, because either of these patterns can have the positional reduplicated or a causative added. I don't think I've seen a combination of these! The positionals can have *k- prefixed. In any case we have at a minimum the complication of defining VERB-MOTION = thi, hi, i instead of something more expected. Positionals include not just the, dhaN, he, but also dhe 'moving'. So, for example, the Dakota verb hiyaya turns out to be cognate with OP thidhadha. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 00:26:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:26:39 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I remember about a year ago there was a discussion about [verb of > motion]+[another verb] combinations, like "come help" or "go get drunk" > in English. I've forgotten the jargon for this. Serial verb? > It almost looks like we might have had that sort of situation using > positionals for the second verb. Then the result of that becomes a > descriptor of a condition, which can thus be fed as the lexical concept > into a causative in these cases. Thoughts? Well, I see where you going with the decriptor of a condition - though I might have said "manner of performing an action, or a characterization of the results of performing an action." And any of these forms can be causativized. The verbs of placement with i-POSITIONAL-CAUSATIVE are interesting in being independent. Most of these forms, causative or otherwise, remain dependent. But the i-POSITIONAL forms can also occur independently, too, I believe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 01:13:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:13:09 -0700 Subject: Come and Suddenly (RE: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > As far as I know, there are just four basic verbs of > motion available: PS Da > MVS *re, OP dhe, 'go' *rE(h) yA > *u, i, 'come' *(h)u u > *i, (?) hi, 'get there' *hi i > *thi, thi, 'get here' *thi hi Dakota loses initial *h and and then reduces *th to h, so you do end up with one h-form - but a diffferent form from OP, Winnebago, etc. The initial of *(h)u is a bit odd - another anomalous h. Most Dhegiha has hu, but OP has just i < *u. The Dh first and second persons, in OP, too, suggest hu, as you get phu/s^u (or phi/s^i in OP). We could put this down to loss of h in the third person in OP, but there are two other oddities with this stem that support *u. 1) The vertitive is *ku (e.g., OP gi, Os ku), *not* *khu. 2) That Dakota compound hiyu, conservatively inflected hibu/hinu/hiyu, has bu, not phu, in the first person. I'm inclined to think that the stem is *u, but that the first and second person stem, maybe the third person stem, too, became *hu even in PMV by analogy with *hi 'to arrive there'. In short, bu/s^u/u (an oral glottal stop stem) was a bit too odd of a paradigm even for PMV. > So what other options do we have, if not the 'come' form? A mysterious fifth motion verb - a sort of generic covering both coming and going. Or a locative, of course. Or I guess we could opt for irregular raising of *u to i across Dhegiha and IO. I like that last least. You can find these forms in (OP) text by looking for the appropriate shapes (some with a- on the motion stems), or by searching on glosses like start, begin, suddenly, or repeatedly. You also run into them periodically in elicitation, e.g., try 'to push' or maybe 'to shove' or 'to throw'. Think of things that have to be done suddenly to be done well, and make sure the context doesn't suggest a continuative or present. That is, 'I pushed him', not 'I am pushing a grocery cart'. Or, you can find them under the suggested glosses in dictionaries, and, if you look far enough, you find them appended to other verbs in dictionaries of Dhegiha, IO, or Winnebago, generally with no gloss or explanation offered. I haven't seen this latter pattern in Dakota, where they seem to be more or less moribund (or not as productive). I haven't studied texts outside of OP, so I don't know how common textually they are in other languages. In OP they are less common than progressives, but there's maybe one example per page or so, on average. I think you'd want to teach them at about the same point where Russian courses start looking at perfective/imperfective in detail. Second year? Certain forms are more common, e.g., thidhe(dhe) (j^ire(hi) in IO or Wi), dhedhe, idhe, idhaN(dhaN), but if you look in a large set of examples, e.g., a whole dictionary or the OP texts, you find sporadic instances of most of the combinatorial possibilities. If you ponder the semantics of given examples the motion verbs and positional seem to make sense in terms of the path followed by the action, or the shape of the object, etc., but I don't think I would be able to predict forms for a particular verb confidently. It seems that you generally get one particular form with a given main verb, not a variety of forms with different shades of meaning. In effect, verbs have a sort of shape gender in the languages where these forms prevalent. I've never done elicitation on this, so I really don't know if all verbs have a particular "inceptive/instantive/frequentive" auxiliary or not. Maybe some do vary the verb with intent or randomly, and maybe some verbs can't take such auxiliaries. I didn't really notice the whole thing until after my fieldwork, I'm afraid. The same sort of gender like consideration seems to govern whether you get the, khe, or dhaN (or even ge) as an evidential particle with a given verb. By the way, there was a nice khe evidential example in the discussion of prairies, lowlands, and hollows - I think I let it go without comment, figuring folks might get tire of my little obsessions. If desired I can supply some examples of "aorist" auxiliaries in context, though I believe I may have done this already (check the archives). From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 01:13:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:13:06 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: > The syntax is a little more complex than this, because either of these > patterns can have the positional reduplicated or a causative added. I > don't think I've seen a combination of these! The positionals can have > *k- prefixed. That's an interesting point. I've been tempted to do a conference paper on the causative-like K- that occurs with positional verbs. k-raN, k-re, k-?oN-he bear the same relationship to raN, the, (w)uN that 'set, stand, lay' bear to 'sit, stand, lie' in English, i.e., they behave as if they had the causative suffix. The only other verb that behaves like this that I know about is Dakotan kta 'kill' acompared with t?a 'die'. The K- certainly behaves like a causative, but it would be very hard to interpret as one since in languages with this word order have their AUX's after the main verb all the rest of the time. FWIW. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 01:17:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:17:31 -0700 Subject: anuNg - nupa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, CATCHES VIOLET wrote: > WHILE IT DOESN'T EXPLICTLY SAY THE WORD FOR TWO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD, > ANUNKXA, on both sides, on each side etc, like at the top and bottom, > opposing sides, only two sides, head-tail, right-left, above-below, on > top-on bottom, > so namp anunkxa yuza hypothetically, i went to shake the hand (one) of a > grieving person, and felt really sorry when i saw him/her, i would take > his/her hand in both of mine and slightly rub in to show my sympathy... > Violet This is the sort of detail that is missing from most Siouan dictionaries, sadly! And Buechel doesn't clarify that the underlying form is anuNkha. From mary.marino at usask.ca Tue Feb 3 05:39:26 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:39:26 -0600 Subject: Come and Suddenly (RE: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Excuse me: what are the "archives" that you mention in the last paragraph below? If there is an archive of these email exchanges I would like to know how to access them: I am trying to save portions for my PhD student (interdisciplinary studies) who needs some of this material but can hardly handle it on a message-by-message basis. I have been saving everything to compile for his Comps - suitably arranged and weeded out. This student is Dakota, but not in linguistics and not a fluent speaker. His research is in culture and history. Any help would be appreciated. Mary At 06:13 PM 2/2/2004 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > As far as I know, there are just four basic verbs of > > motion available: > > PS Da > > MVS *re, OP dhe, 'go' *rE(h) yA > > *u, i, 'come' *(h)u u > > *i, (?) hi, 'get there' *hi i > > *thi, thi, 'get here' *thi hi > >Dakota loses initial *h and and then reduces *th to h, so you do end up >with one h-form - but a diffferent form from OP, Winnebago, etc. > >The initial of *(h)u is a bit odd - another anomalous h. Most Dhegiha has >hu, but OP has just i < *u. The Dh first and second persons, in OP, too, >suggest hu, as you get phu/s^u (or phi/s^i in OP). We could put this down >to loss of h in the third person in OP, but there are two other oddities >with this stem that support *u. > >1) The vertitive is *ku (e.g., OP gi, Os ku), *not* *khu. >2) That Dakota compound hiyu, conservatively inflected hibu/hinu/hiyu, has >bu, not phu, in the first person. > >I'm inclined to think that the stem is *u, but that the first and second >person stem, maybe the third person stem, too, became *hu even in PMV by >analogy with *hi 'to arrive there'. In short, bu/s^u/u (an oral glottal >stop stem) was a bit too odd of a paradigm even for PMV. > > > So what other options do we have, if not the 'come' form? > >A mysterious fifth motion verb - a sort of generic covering both coming >and going. Or a locative, of course. Or I guess we could opt for >irregular raising of *u to i across Dhegiha and IO. I like that last >least. > >You can find these forms in (OP) text by looking for the appropriate >shapes (some with a- on the motion stems), or by searching on glosses like >start, begin, suddenly, or repeatedly. You also run into them >periodically in elicitation, e.g., try 'to push' or maybe 'to shove' or >'to throw'. Think of things that have to be done suddenly to be done >well, and make sure the context doesn't suggest a continuative or present. >That is, 'I pushed him', not 'I am pushing a grocery cart'. > >Or, you can find them under the suggested glosses in dictionaries, and, if >you look far enough, you find them appended to other verbs in dictionaries >of Dhegiha, IO, or Winnebago, generally with no gloss or explanation >offered. > >I haven't seen this latter pattern in Dakota, where they seem to be more >or less moribund (or not as productive). > >I haven't studied texts outside of OP, so I don't know how common >textually they are in other languages. In OP they are less common than >progressives, but there's maybe one example per page or so, on average. >I think you'd want to teach them at about the same point where Russian >courses start looking at perfective/imperfective in detail. Second year? > >Certain forms are more common, e.g., thidhe(dhe) (j^ire(hi) in IO or Wi), >dhedhe, idhe, idhaN(dhaN), but if you look in a large set of examples, >e.g., a whole dictionary or the OP texts, you find sporadic instances of >most of the combinatorial possibilities. > >If you ponder the semantics of given examples the motion verbs and >positional seem to make sense in terms of the path followed by the action, >or the shape of the object, etc., but I don't think I would be able to >predict forms for a particular verb confidently. > >It seems that you generally get one particular form with a given main >verb, not a variety of forms with different shades of meaning. In effect, >verbs have a sort of shape gender in the languages where these forms >prevalent. I've never done elicitation on this, so I really don't know if >all verbs have a particular "inceptive/instantive/frequentive" auxiliary >or not. Maybe some do vary the verb with intent or randomly, and maybe >some verbs can't take such auxiliaries. I didn't really notice the whole >thing until after my fieldwork, I'm afraid. > >The same sort of gender like consideration seems to govern whether you get >the, khe, or dhaN (or even ge) as an evidential particle with a given >verb. By the way, there was a nice khe evidential example in the >discussion of prairies, lowlands, and hollows - I think I let it go >without comment, figuring folks might get tire of my little obsessions. > >If desired I can supply some examples of "aorist" auxiliaries in context, >though I believe I may have done this already (check the archives). From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 12:22:37 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:22:37 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to offer. Thanks, Michael The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw Savansa? Thanks, as always, John From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 3 15:23:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:23:09 -0700 Subject: Archives of the Siouan List In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040202233544.01232c48@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > Excuse me: what are the "archives" that you mention in the last paragraph > below? If there is an archive of these email exchanges I would like to > know how to access them: I am trying to save portions for my PhD student > (interdisciplinary studies) who needs some of this material but can hardly > handle it on a message-by-message basis. See http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/siouan.html. Everything is there except one or two misposts that I have had removed at the request of the poster. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 15:38:12 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:38:12 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, etc., etc., in its many incarnations. Almost NO Native American languages had the consonant [v], and, as far as I know, none east of the Plains. (I think maybe some modern Mohawk and Creek dialect(s) may have it as an allophone.) I think someone just picked up the Dhegihan term /hkaaNze/, like the Illinois did, and Margry or his source made a mistake with it. The initial A- in the Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms including the O- of Ojibwe. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mccafferty" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:22 AM Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. > Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Feb 3 15:45:19 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:45:19 -0800 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: Nothing really clicks here. The modern Miami-Illinois name for the Quapaw is /kaahpa/; /akaansa/ is in the earliest period a name for the Quapaw or just Dhegihans in general; later it's specifically the M-I name for the Kaw. 'Savansa' is reminiscent of the name for the Shawnees in many languages, which makes me think Margry might have gotten a little confused. Not that many M-I nouns begin with /s/, so if that's not the explanation, it's probably from some other language. And finally 'Wasa' looks like the later central Algonquian name for the Osage, as in M-I /was$aa$i/. That's all I can come up with strictly looking at the Algonquian end of it. Dave > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. Thanks, Michael > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. >> I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while >> searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic >> designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. >> According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of such >> a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms for the >> Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, >> Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything >> that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw >> Savansa? >> Thanks, as always, >> John From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 3 15:54:16 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:54:16 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? In the Hdbk. of N. Amer. Indians (as distinct from Hodge's Hdbk. of Amer. Indians) Doug Parks says (XIII.512) "An anomalous historical form, Savansa, was recorded in 1684 as an alternate for Akansa, perhaps a transcriptional error (Tonti in Margry 1876-1886, 1:616)." Given the vagaries of ethnonym transcription and the lack of other examples, error is a good bet. Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 16:06:20 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:06:20 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Dave. The waa$aa$i notion i hadn't thought of. Best, Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, David Costa wrote: > Nothing really clicks here. The modern Miami-Illinois name for the Quapaw is > /kaahpa/; /akaansa/ is in the earliest period a name for the Quapaw or just > Dhegihans in general; later it's specifically the M-I name for the Kaw. > 'Savansa' is reminiscent of the name for the Shawnees in many languages, > which makes me think Margry might have gotten a little confused. Not that > many M-I nouns begin with /s/, so if that's not the explanation, it's > probably from some other language. And finally 'Wasa' looks like the later > central Algonquian name for the Osage, as in M-I /was$aa$i/. > > That's all I can come up with strictly looking at the Algonquian end of it. > > Dave > > > > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > > offer. Thanks, Michael > > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > >> I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > >> searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > >> designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > >> According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of such > >> a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms for the > >> Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, > >> Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything > >> that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw > >> Savansa? > > >> Thanks, as always, > > >> John > > > > > > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 16:04:58 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:04:58 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004101c3ea6b$ce4e63f0$0ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Right. I'm aware of these possibilities. Just wanted to search the more distant Siouan horizons. Thanks for the reply. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, > etc., etc., in its many incarnations. Almost NO Native American languages had > the consonant [v], and, as far as I know, none east of the Plains. (I think > maybe some modern Mohawk and Creek dialect(s) may have it as an allophone.) I > think someone just picked up the Dhegihan term /hkaaNze/, like the Illinois did, > and Margry or his source made a mistake with it. The initial A- in the > Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that becomes > /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms including the O- of > Ojibwe. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Mccafferty" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:22 AM > Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > > offer. > > Thanks, Michael > > > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > > > Thanks, as always, > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 3 16:05:59 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:05:59 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <401FC428.8070400@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Alan. I'll pass on your commment, too. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > In the Hdbk. of N. Amer. Indians (as distinct from Hodge's Hdbk. of > Amer. Indians) Doug Parks says (XIII.512) "An anomalous historical form, > Savansa, was recorded in 1684 as an alternate for Akansa, perhaps a > transcriptional error (Tonti in Margry 1876-1886, 1:616)." Given the > vagaries of ethnonym transcription and the lack of other examples, error > is a good bet. > > Alan > > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 3 16:33:32 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:33:32 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004101c3ea6b$ce4e63f0$0ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: R. Rankin wrote: > The initial A- in the > Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that becomes > /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms including the O- of > Ojibwe. The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) expressions, and not always then. Alan From mary.marino at usask.ca Tue Feb 3 16:43:08 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:43:08 -0600 Subject: Archives of the Siouan List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, John. This looks great. Mary At 08:23 AM 2/3/2004 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > Excuse me: what are the "archives" that you mention in the last paragraph > > below? If there is an archive of these email exchanges I would like to > > know how to access them: I am trying to save portions for my PhD student > > (interdisciplinary studies) who needs some of this material but can hardly > > handle it on a message-by-message basis. > >See http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/siouan.html. Everything is >there except one or two misposts that I have had removed at the request of >the poster. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Feb 3 17:59:01 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:59:01 +0100 Subject: anuNg - nupa Message-ID: Thanks to all for your help! I actually was misled by the different orthographies of _anunkasan_ (after looking at White-Hat's spelling - k-dot - I realize that there are no adjacent consonants *k-x). (Jan Ullrich) >This refers to the fact that the head and the tail of the eagle are white.<< That's it - of course!! How could I forget about this, having seen quite a couple of them :) I really would have liked the idea of _nupa_ being involved some way in _anunka_ (anunk/anung), but it seems that the _-ka_ part doesn't make sense as a separate word :(( Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 18:37:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:37:38 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: > And finally 'Wasa' looks like the later central Algonquian name for the Osage, as in M-I /was$aa$i/. Sorry, I forgot to mention this part. Wasa is the name of the Quapaw Black Bear clan. It's Siouan wa+sa 'something black', 'the black one', a taboo replacement form parallel to Osage and Kaw wasape/wasabe 'black bear'. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 18:54:59 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:54:59 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an Algonquianist. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:34 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) R. Rankin wrote: > The initial A- in the > Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that > becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms > including the O- of Ojibwe. The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) expressions, and not always then. Alan From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Feb 3 19:13:32 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:13:32 -0800 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: Actually, you guys are both right. There *is* an Algonquian short */o-/ (PA */we-/) that's used with ethnonyms. (And yes, this becomes /a/ thru normal processes in Miami-Illinois.) HISTORICALLY, tho, I don't think this is present in Ojibwe /ojibwe/ 'Ojibwe', at least not originally. Later speakers or speakers of sister languages might have analyzed it that way, tho. Dave > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or > maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > Algonquianist. > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:34 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > R. Rankin wrote: > >> The initial A- in the >> Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that >> becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms >> including the O- of Ojibwe. > > The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', > > as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to > puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives > says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) > expressions, and not always then. > > Alan > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 3 19:50:03 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:50:03 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DD5@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or > maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > Algonquianist. Dave Pentland said (4 years ago): > the name ocipwe:(w)- ... > it's an group name with prefixed o(t)- and final -V:w (as in kiristino:, and > (o)maske:ko:w 'Swampy Cree'), but -(c)ipw- is not a phonologically possible root > in Algonquian and must therefore be a foreign word. and later-- > Proto-Algonquian did not allow short *i in the first syllable of a word... > The non-Alg part could be either /ipw/ (with prefix *wet-, automatically > palatalizing to phonetic [c^] before *i), or /tipw/ (with prefix *we-). I guess all we can safely say at this point is that Ojibway is of unknown origin (how I hate to say that!) The o- prefix *does* occur in, e.g., early forms of Maskegon, Menominee, Miami, Mississagi, Monsoni, Otagamie, Sauk, all of which are etymologically transparent (swamp, wild rice, downstream, big-river mouth, moose, opposite shore, river-mouth, respectively). Alan From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 3 20:29:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:24 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: I'm happy with whatever people come up with on this. I remember reading Charles Hockett's paper entitled approximately "What Algonkian is really like" about 3 decades ago and deciding that I'd never been so confused in my life. In any event, I think my analysis holds at least for Akansa. :-) Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:50 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) Rankin, Robert L wrote: > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, > or maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > Algonquianist. Dave Pentland said (4 years ago): > the name ocipwe:(w)- ... > it's an group name with prefixed o(t)- and final -V:w (as in kiristino:, and > (o)maske:ko:w 'Swampy Cree'), but -(c)ipw- is not a phonologically possible root > in Algonquian and must therefore be a foreign word. and later-- > Proto-Algonquian did not allow short *i in the first syllable of a > word... > The non-Alg part could be either /ipw/ (with prefix *wet-, automatically > palatalizing to phonetic [c^] before *i), or /tipw/ (with prefix *we-). I guess all we can safely say at this point is that Ojibway is of unknown origin (how I hate to say that!) The o- prefix *does* occur in, e.g., early forms of Maskegon, Menominee, Miami, Mississagi, Monsoni, Otagamie, Sauk, all of which are etymologically transparent (swamp, wild rice, downstream, big-river mouth, moose, opposite shore, river-mouth, respectively). Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Feb 3 23:58:11 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:58:11 -0600 Subject: prairie - plains Message-ID: I asked one of our speakers last night what the Omaha for 'prairie' was. She couldn't think of it at the time, but called me back this afternoon after consulting with two other speakers. The word they came up with is xa'de-maNz^aN', literally 'grass-land'. I don't recall if this was mentioned before in the discussion. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 00:28:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:28:18 -0700 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wonder if Savansa is a printers or handwriting ghost for l'Akansa? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. > Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 00:32:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:32:34 -0700 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004101c3ea6b$ce4e63f0$0ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I see Bob was there first! On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, > etc., etc., in its many incarnations. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 00:48:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:48:24 -0700 Subject: anuNg - nupa In-Reply-To: <401FE165.7060606@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > Thanks to all for your help! > I actually was misled by the different orthographies of _anunkasan_ > (after looking at White-Hat's spelling - k-dot - I realize that there > are no adjacent consonants *k-x). In case there is any uncertainty on this point, Siouanists, especially U of Colorado Siouanists, tend to write stop (C) + x for velarized affrication. There are a few minimal pairs for Ch vs. Cx in Teton, as I understand it, and I've noticed that Violet, who has a Colorado-influenced teaching and linguistic background, is scrupulous about writing Ch or Cx as appropriate. You also see Ch ~ Cx ~ Cs^ in writing aspiration in Osage and Kaw, two other Siouan languages with velarized (~ palatalized velarized) aspiration. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 01:04:32 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:04:32 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: <003101c3e9f2$f83b5020$1bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > That's an interesting point. I've been tempted to do a conference paper > on the causative-like K- that occurs with positional verbs. k-raN, > k-re, k-?oN-he bear the same relationship to raN, the, (w)uN that 'set, > stand, lay' bear to 'sit, stand, lie' in English, i.e., they behave as > if they had the causative suffix. The only other verb that behaves like > this that I know about is Dakotan kta 'kill' acompared with t?a 'die'. > The K- certainly behaves like a causative, but it would be very hard to > interpret as one since in languages with this word order have their > AUX's after the main verb all the rest of the time. FWIW. I've always associated the *k in these positional formations with the *k in vertitive motion verbs, assuming it had something to do with "returning to home position," or maybe something else more general like "place with respect to something." That wouldn't handle ktA, though. I kind of wonder about the "organic" *k in the root *k?u 'to give', too, though I think that may be just a plain dative, even though I don't think *?u is attested. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 4 01:57:52 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:57:52 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, but your explanation points to where that weird S- came from-- an l or an L. It's nice. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I see Bob was there first! > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > > I strongly suspect a mis-copying, at some point, of Akansa, Acansa, Acansea, > > etc., etc., in its many incarnations. > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 4 14:43:03 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 07:43:03 -0700 Subject: SSILA Newsletter Message-ID: Hi, everyone, The most recent on-line SSILA Newsletter contains a request for information about a song in an unknown language. The text as reproduced looks to me as though it might be either Hochunk (lots of zhe, initial h+V sequences) or Dhegiha. Some of you who know those languages should be sure to check. I can forward the newsletter to you if you don't get it yourself. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 4 14:46:09 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:46:09 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Right. I believe in terms of "us" exclusive (off-list), this came up when Dave, John, Bob and I were "talking" about four years ago. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, David Costa wrote: > Actually, you guys are both right. There *is* an Algonquian short */o-/ (PA > */we-/) that's used with ethnonyms. (And yes, this becomes /a/ thru normal > processes in Miami-Illinois.) HISTORICALLY, tho, I don't think this is > present in Ojibwe /ojibwe/ 'Ojibwe', at least not originally. Later speakers > or speakers of sister languages might have analyzed it that way, tho. > > Dave > > > > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, or > > maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > > Algonquianist. > > > > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:34 AM > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > > > > R. Rankin wrote: > > > >> The initial A- in the > >> Algonquian borrowings of it is a reflex of Algonquian short */o/ that > >> becomes /a/ in Illinois. It's used with a number of ethnonyms > >> including the O- of Ojibwe. > > > > The O- in Ojibway may actually be part of Proto-Algonquian *wet- 'pull', > > > > as in Cree oci-pw- 'shrink' (per Ives Goddard), with reference to > > puckered mocassins, rather than of the ethnonymic prefix we(t)-. Ives > > says the latter is used only with (originally) locative (or similar) > > expressions, and not always then. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 4 14:50:15 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:50:15 -0500 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339B5@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, explaining Algonquian was not Hockett's forte. That said, Algonquian is not an easy road. Joe Campbell, the Nahuatl scholar and dictionary maker, once told me that Nahuatl looked as if it were designed by engineers at Mercedes-Benz (or whatever they call it these days..Mercedes-Viacom??). Algonquian is as if Coyote were the engineer. Michael On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I'm happy with whatever people come up with on this. I remember reading > Charles Hockett's paper entitled approximately "What Algonkian is really > like" about 3 decades ago and deciding that I'd never been so confused > in my life. In any event, I think my analysis holds at least for > Akansa. :-) > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:50 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) > > > Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > > That's funny. My recollection was that it was Ives who told me what I > > > passed on here. Maybe at different points in his thought processes, > > or maybe it was Dave Costa or someone else, but it came from an > > Algonquianist. > > Dave Pentland said (4 years ago): > > > the name ocipwe:(w)- ... > > it's an group name with prefixed o(t)- and final -V:w (as in > kiristino:, and > > (o)maske:ko:w 'Swampy Cree'), but -(c)ipw- is not a phonologically > possible root > > in Algonquian and must therefore be a foreign word. > > and later-- > > > Proto-Algonquian did not allow short *i in the first syllable of a > > word... > > The non-Alg part could be either /ipw/ (with prefix *wet-, > automatically > > palatalizing to phonetic [c^] before *i), or /tipw/ (with prefix > *we-). > > I guess all we can safely say at this point is that Ojibway is of > unknown origin (how I hate to say that!) > > The o- prefix *does* occur in, e.g., early forms of Maskegon, Menominee, > > Miami, Mississagi, Monsoni, Otagamie, Sauk, all of which are > etymologically transparent (swamp, wild rice, downstream, big-river > mouth, moose, opposite shore, river-mouth, respectively). > > Alan > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:42:03 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:42:03 -0600 Subject: SSILA Newsletter Message-ID: David, Sorry, I looked through it and deleted it. Could you snip out the song and post it on the Siouan List? Many thanks, Bob -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.Colorado.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: SSILA Newsletter Hi, everyone, The most recent on-line SSILA Newsletter contains a request for information about a song in an unknown language. The text as reproduced looks to me as though it might be either Hochunk (lots of zhe, initial h+V sequences) or Dhegiha. Some of you who know those languages should be sure to check. I can forward the newsletter to you if you don't get it yourself. 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 Wed Feb 4 15:45:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:45:33 -0600 Subject: Song in SSILA newsletter. Message-ID: Oops, I hadn't looked far enough ahead. It was the LAST SSILA newsletter I deleted. I have the new one here. Sorry, bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:49:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:49:33 -0600 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) Message-ID: > I've always associated the *k in these positional formations with the *k in vertitive motion verbs, assuming it had something to do with "returning to home position," or maybe something else more general like "place with respect to something." I've looked at all known K- prefixes and don't find the semantics of any of them at all satisfying. > I kind of wonder about the "organic" *k in the root *k?u 'to give', too, though I think that may be just a plain dative, even though I don't think *?u is attested. It never occurred to me to try to decompose k?u or ku?, whichever it was (it pops up both ways in different subgroups). Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:51:12 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:12 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) Message-ID: BTW, another variant spelling is Alkansa, with an "l" after the A. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:28 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Quapaw designation (fwd) I wonder if Savansa is a printers or handwriting ghost for l'Akansa? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light > to offer. Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and > while searching for something else I came across the following > enigmatic designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: > 616): Savansa. According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the > sole occurrence of such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to > Miami-Illinois terms for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier > Handbook mentions a Quapaw gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two > syllables of Savansa. Do you see anything that might suggest a > possible Miami-Illinois source for calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 4 15:52:31 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:52:31 -0600 Subject: prairie - plains Message-ID: I don't know if that would be a "traditional" term or not, but it's a darn good translation -- probably the best I've seen so far. Please give them my thanks. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Rory M Larson [mailto:rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 5:58 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: prairie - plains I asked one of our speakers last night what the Omaha for 'prairie' was. She couldn't think of it at the time, but called me back this afternoon after consulting with two other speakers. The word they came up with is xa'de-maNz^aN', literally 'grass-land'. I don't recall if this was mentioned before in the discussion. Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Feb 4 16:11:32 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:11:32 -0600 Subject: SSILA Newsletter In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339B9@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, the song, unlike the chair, is not Osage. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:42 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: SSILA Newsletter David, Sorry, I looked through it and deleted it. Could you snip out the song and post it on the Siouan List? Many thanks, Bob -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S [mailto:rood at spot.Colorado.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: SSILA Newsletter Hi, everyone, The most recent on-line SSILA Newsletter contains a request for information about a song in an unknown language. The text as reproduced looks to me as though it might be either Hochunk (lots of zhe, initial h+V sequences) or Dhegiha. Some of you who know those languages should be sure to check. I can forward the newsletter to you if you don't get it yourself. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 16:19:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:19:18 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I beleive this lyric is in Hochank (native name, various spellings) also known as Winnebago (in English use, from Algonquian sources). I'll forward it to the Siouan List. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Scott DeLancey wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > * Song text in an unidentified Indian (?) language > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >From Michelle Clemens (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) 29 Jan 2004: > > I have been put in charge of finding out the correct pronunciation of > the text of a song that our college choir will be performing. It is > one of the movements in "Song of the Skyloom," by Bernard van Beurden. > We will be performing the world premiere of this piece. > > In the orchestral score, the composer indicates that the song text in > each movement comes from a different Indian language. One movement is > based on a Lakota story, another is identified as Creek. The song that > I am interested in, however, is identified only as "Wunk-Hi Wawan." > The words are as follows: > > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka. Zhe > skeshunana; Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka zhe ske shunanaya. Hicha kolo > hinuk lo innagle wi dokanna na. Hizhan do maiku ka zhe ske shununa. > > Can anyone identify this language? I would really appreciate some help > on this. > > --Michelle Clemens > Carroll College, Wisconsin > (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Feb 4 16:22:34 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:22:34 -0600 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339BC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > BTW, another variant spelling is Alkansa, with an "l" after the A. If anyone's interested, I have a Word document with 42 illustrative quotations (1673-1846) for an OED entry for the ethnonym ARKANSAS, along with definition and etymology "slips", the latter thanks to Rankin, Koontz, and Costa. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 16:30:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:30:46 -0700 Subject: i- in Dhegiha i-POSITIONAL=...CAUSE (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339BB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > It never occurred to me to try to decompose k?u or ku?, whichever it was > (it pops up both ways in different subgroups). It may well be overanalysis, of course, but I had noticed that it was one of the few cases - the only one I know of, actually - of a Mississippi Valley Siouan root verb that is essentially trivalent, and that it agrees with the beneficiary as patient, just like derived trivalent verbs of the dative persuasion. Then I realized it began with *k, too. In a sense we have a smoking gun, but no body. I haven't noticed any cases of hypothetically underlying *(?)u, which might have meant something like 'to donate, to give away' or 'to present'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 4 16:37:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:37:04 -0700 Subject: anunk - nupa (fwd) Message-ID: I see I absent mindedly sent this to Jan directly, rather than the list! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:02:31 -0700 (MST) From: Koontz John E To: Jan Ullrich Subject: RE: anunk - nupa On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > anuNkhasaN > anuNkha - 'on both sides' > saN - 'whitish' > > This refers to the fact that the head and the tail of the eagle are > white. So, attaching my query to the last post in the sequence, anuNkha is capable of being reduced to anuNk (or anuNg) in dependent position in compounds? I think I recall seeing -pha listed as a source of -b. In any event, it looks like I can eliminate this form from the list! From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 4 20:22:53 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:22:53 -0700 Subject: SSILA Newsletter song text Message-ID: Sorry I was being so lazy this morning when I wrote about the request for help with the song text. Here is the relevant paragraph from the SSILA Bulletin #205; I would be interested in knowing what you all think. David >>From Michelle Clemens (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) 29 Jan 2004: I have been put in charge of finding out the correct pronunciation of the text of a song that our college choir will be performing. It is one of the movements in "Song of the Skyloom," by Bernard van Beurden. We will be performing the world premiere of this piece. In the orchestral score, the composer indicates that the song text in each movement comes from a different Indian language. One movement is based on a Lakota story, another is identified as Creek. The song that I am interested in, however, is identified only as "Wunk-Hi Wawan." The words are as follows: Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka. Zhe skeshunana; Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka zhe ske shunanaya. Hicha kolo hinuk lo innagle wi dokanna na. Hizhan do maiku ka zhe ske shununa. Can anyone identify this language? I would really appreciate some help on this. --Michelle Clemens Carroll College, Wisconsin (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Feb 4 20:55:52 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:55:52 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Message-ID: Hi gang: I have an 1870 treaty between the Dakota and Ojibway. The treaty is an inter-tribal one called the Ft. Abercrombie Treaty arranged by Fr. Genin. Who could I contact to have the Ojibway names translated? LouieG From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Feb 4 23:20:47 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:20:47 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) Message-ID: I think John is probably right. I've been looking at some Hochank texts lately, and hiz^aN, 'one', or 'someone', seems to be one of the commonest words in the language. Maybe one of the Hochunk specialists can comment further? Rory Koontz John E ssila at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Sent by: cc: Siouan List owner-siouan at lists.c Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) olorado.edu 02/04/2004 10:19 AM Please respond to siouan I beleive this lyric is in Hochank (native name, various spellings) also known as Winnebago (in English use, from Algonquian sources). I'll forward it to the Siouan List. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Scott DeLancey wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > * Song text in an unidentified Indian (?) language > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >From Michelle Clemens (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) 29 Jan 2004: > > I have been put in charge of finding out the correct pronunciation of > the text of a song that our college choir will be performing. It is > one of the movements in "Song of the Skyloom," by Bernard van Beurden. > We will be performing the world premiere of this piece. > > In the orchestral score, the composer indicates that the song text in > each movement comes from a different Indian language. One movement is > based on a Lakota story, another is identified as Creek. The song that > I am interested in, however, is identified only as "Wunk-Hi Wawan." > The words are as follows: > > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka. Zhe > skeshunana; Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka zhe ske shunanaya. Hicha kolo > hinuk lo innagle wi dokanna na. Hizhan do maiku ka zhe ske shununa. > > Can anyone identify this language? I would really appreciate some help > on this. > > --Michelle Clemens > Carroll College, Wisconsin > (mclemens at carroll1.cc.edu) From heike.boedeker at netcologne.de Wed Feb 4 23:20:44 2004 From: heike.boedeker at netcologne.de (Heike =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6deker?=) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:20:44 +0100 Subject: Algonquian made harder (was: Quapaw designation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 09:50 04.02.04 -0500, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >Well, explaining Algonquian was not Hockett's forte. "What Alg. is really like" was an a bit idiosyncratic attempt at a reply to a series of Pike/Ericson articles (which appeared somewhat earlier in IJAL), but basically, to borrow from Navajo, it was "Algonquian made easier", as a lot of complicating features were left out. So, e.g. reading his Potawatomi grammar (which likewise had appeared in IJAL) is "Algonquian made harder" and clarifying at the same time. Best, Heike From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Feb 4 23:33:02 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:33:02 -0800 Subject: Algonquian made harder (was: Quapaw designation) Message-ID: I would agree. Despite its name, "What Algonquian is Really Like" is a terrible place to start as anyone's introduction to Algonquian studies. Hockett's Potawatomi articles in IJAL are important but quite terse and very abstract phonologically, as well as hindered by the strange ideas of the time about what was important to put in a grammar and what was not important. They're not really very usable to anyone except people who already know a lot about Potawatomi or Ojibwe. As a *real* introduction to Algonquian grammar for a first-timer, I would wholeheartedly recommend Christopher Wolfart's Plains Cree sketch in volume 17 of the handbook. Dave Costa >>Well, explaining Algonquian was not Hockett's forte. > > "What Alg. is really like" was an a bit idiosyncratic attempt at a reply to > a series of Pike/Ericson articles (which appeared somewhat earlier in > IJAL), but basically, to borrow from Navajo, it was "Algonquian made > easier", as a lot of complicating features were left out. So, e.g. reading > his Potawatomi grammar (which likewise had appeared in IJAL) is "Algonquian > made harder" and clarifying at the same time. > > Best, > > Heike > From mckay020 at umn.edu Thu Feb 5 00:12:06 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (Cantemaza) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:12:06 -0600 Subject: Off the list question In-Reply-To: <000b01c3eb61$4683be60$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: Louis, I could give the list to the Ojibwe language instructor here at the U if you'd like. -Cantemaza de miye Louis Garcia wrote: >Hi gang: >I have an 1870 treaty between the Dakota and Ojibway. >The treaty is an inter-tribal one called the Ft. Abercrombie Treaty arranged >by Fr. Genin. > >Who could I contact to have the Ojibway names translated? >LouieG > > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 5 05:42:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:42:00 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Message-ID: Try John Nichols at the U. of Minnesota. He's one of the world's experts on Ojibwe and its dialects. Bob From mckay020 at umn.edu Thu Feb 5 06:26:48 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (Cantemaza) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:26:48 -0600 Subject: Off the list question In-Reply-To: <003601c3ebaa$d93ce440$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Louie, I was just going to say the same thing. John's office is just down the stairs from mine. -Cantemaza de miye R. Rankin wrote: >Try John Nichols at the U. of Minnesota. He's one of the world's experts on >Ojibwe and its dialects. > >Bob > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 5 08:15:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 01:15:46 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) Message-ID: What convinced me this was Winnebago was (1) "hizhan" = hiz^aN 'one, a', as Rory pointed out, (2) "Hicha kolo" = hic^ako'ro 'friend', and (3) a fairly frequent occurrence of final consonants. I'm not really familiar with Winnebago texts, either in terms of dealing with them regularly or in terms of knowing which ones are known. I don't. off hand, recognize the source of this one. My impression is that this is written in no very systematic orthography, or perhaps "simplified" from something like the Radin orthography by someone who didn't understand that. I've included a few potential identifications of words. > Wunk-Hi Wawan waNaNk hi man CAUSE The last word of the title resembles OP waa'waN, the name of the "pipe dance" or adoption ceremony, but I haven't identified a Winnebago form here, and I'm uncertain of the first part, too. Note that the text follows the repeated parallel lines approach that we see in Dhegiha ritual texts, too. Each line comes close to being in the form hiz^aN XXXX ka z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL (I?) ... one, always in that way. The repeated -ka element is a bit puzzling, but could be a first person causative following -k: -k + ha > -ka. The imperative inflects A1 =ha, A2 =ra, A3 =hi. Alternatively, there is a postverbal particle k?e 'often'. However, the vowels are generally along Continental lines and more or less accurate. I suspect that most of the elements I'm having difficulty with are verbs, probably first persons, possibly third. The first person hypothesis is supported by things like -do- in line one (because r stems have the inflection A1 dV- , A2 s^VrV, A3 rV), and maybe by the repeated -ka (along the causative lines suggested). As little as I understand the verbs here, it seems possible to me that this is a list of war exploits. > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL Here -ka is a problem after -c^. Presumably chuch is c^uc^, but -xux is 'break something brittle'. > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; hiz^aN git?ek (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one be bruised-I CAUSE thus habitually DECL > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. hiz^aN z^iz^ik (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL (vocable?) There is a verb booz^iz^ik 'to wiggle' in Marino. in which boo- is the outer instrumental 'by shooting', here essentially 'spontaneously'. The hi-locative paradigm (with regular verbs) is A1 yaa-, A2 hira-, A3 hi-. This might be relevant here and above in terms of -ya-, but wa-(h)i-(h)a- Obj3p-LOC-A1 is wi(i)a-, not waya- > Hicha kolo hinuk lo innagle wi dokan nana. hic^akoro hinuNk roo naNk (?) wi friend woman body (?) SIT PLUR > Hizhan do maiku ka[,] zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one thus habitually DECL In this line I think the verb might be ru?aN 'to carry' or possibly rogiguN 'to dare'. These have the first persons duu?aN and roagiguN, respectively. Marino lists ruaiNgu 'lift up', which is clearly based on the first and closer in form. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Feb 5 19:26:58 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:26:58 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) Message-ID: > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL So is HC z^e equivalent to OP dhe and Da le, 'this'? And is HC s^uNnuN equivalent to OP s^noN/hnoN/noN ? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 5 20:21:54 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:21:54 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > > one thus habitually DECL > > So is HC z^e equivalent to OP dhe and Da le, 'this'? No, it matches s^e, actually: dee, z^ee, gaa. This form is essentially equivalent to a hypothetical *s^e=ska, and =sge (or =ske) is listed by Lipkind as a dubitative, but the form z^ee'sge is defined as 'thus', cf. OP eska(naN) 'perhaps'. The 'in ... way' or 'wise' or 'like' enclitics seem to very pretty variable between the branches of MVS, though most of the particular forms you see have cognates. > And is HC s^uNnuN equivalent to OP s^noN/hnoN/noN ? S^uNunU does match s^naN and derivatives. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 7 01:18:26 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: In modern Omaha, the old =i particle after verbs seems to be dropped in verbs of declaration. This =i normally acted as a pluralizer, but it was also applied in the third-person singular in what John describes as "proximate" usage. Since the =i itself is generally dropped by our speakers, its former presence can be inferred only for verbs ending in -e, which ablaut to -a when the =i should be present. I've understood that rule for a long time with respect to active verbs, but I've been fuzzy about the situation with stative verbs. Today Mark and I worked with our speakers on stative verbs for a while, and it seems to have emerged that stative verbs work the same way, except that the 3rd person singular does not ablaut. Stative verbs use oN- for "me", dhi- for "you", (a)wa- for "us", and wa- for "them". So the basic conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb ending in -e seems to work as follows: bi'ze 'dry' oNbi'ze 'I am dry' dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' bi'ze 's/he is dry' wabi'za 'they are dry' Does this square with what other OP students have found? Thanks! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 7 05:41:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:41:42 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I've understood that rule for a long time with respect to active verbs, > but I've been fuzzy about the situation with stative verbs. Today Mark > and I worked with our speakers on stative verbs for a while, and it > seems to have emerged that stative verbs work the same way, except that > the 3rd person singular does not ablaut. Stative verbs use oN- for > "me", dhi- for "you", (a)wa- for "us", and wa- for "them". So the basic > conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb ending in -e seems to > work as follows: > > bi'ze 'dry' > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' wabi'za 'they are dry' > > Does this square with what other OP students have found? I remember ablaut in 1985 (ex. snede) and that and =i in the texts. I also don't remember wa- in stative plurals. However, I have gone back to the texts to see and found a complex situation. 'Dry' actually occurs and works as you describe, or so it appears from the limited examples. Exx. with bi'ze 'be dry' 90:563.3 niN' ga'=the bi'ze=tte water that it will dry up (*PI) 90:598.12 e'gidhe bi'ze ama at last (the hoop) was dry QUOTE (*PI) The subjects here are inanimate, and in the first case use an inanimate article. Exx. with wakhe'ga 'be sick' (not ablauting). Here we do find =(b)i, but note that this verb is probably not really stative, but rather an experiencer verb. The true patient is the wa- prefix. The subjects here are animate. 90:479.1/2 dhittaN'de wakhega= i your son in law was sick PI 90:487.8/9 Mis^e'dha ihaN' wakhe'ga he'ga= b=az^i Michel his mother is sick a little PI NEG (another French name!) Note common idiom 'not a little' = 'very much'. Here he'ga=z^i governs wakhe'ga 'be sick' and preempts the plural/proximate, but I assume we may still count it. 90:651.6 kki wa?u' wiwi'tta wakhe'ga ha and woman my is sick (*PI) DECL The lack of =(b)i in the third of the three preceding examples may depend on obviation? 90:482.10/11 s^iNgaz^iNga dhi'tta wakhe'ga= the e'=skaN, children yours are sick (*PI) EVID perhaps t?e'= iN=the s^aN' anaN'?aN kkaN'=bdha are dead perhaps even I hear it I wish Here apparently even a plural doesn't require =(b)i, but there may be something about irrealis that acts in these cases (note even t?e lacks =(b)i). Here we have another experiencer verb, apparently idhi'Nge 'he lacked', though it may be that the i is part of the 'sleep' expression. There is no =i, but this may be obviative? 90:62.18 Is^ti'nikhe=akha z^aN=th idhiNge ama Monkey the sleep he lacked (*PI) QUOTE From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 7 07:11:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:11:25 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've made a little progress, though it's anyone's guess if I'm getting somewhere or going astray. Things are taking an interesting turn if the former. On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > The repeated -ka element is a bit puzzling, but could be a first person > causative following -k: -k + ha > -ka. The imperative inflects A1 =ha, > A2 =ra, A3 =hi. Note that the h of the causative is not epenthetic, unlike a lot of word initial morpheme initial h. It is really there, and so it has a different set of morphophonemics. The h of hi is the h that makes Dakota khiyA and OP khidhe aspirated. The k is probably a dative marker. As Comrie has reported transitive causatives tends to involve a dative of the embedded subject. So the dative of hi is gigi < *ki + k + hi (true aspirates becoming voiced stops in Winnebago-Chiwere). > > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL > > Here -ka is a problem after -c^. Presumably chuch is c^uc^, but -xux is > 'break something brittle'. A possiblity might be horughuc^ 'to look at', if both gh (gamma) and c^ are rendered ch! > > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; > hiz^aN git?ek (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one be bruised-I CAUSE thus habitually DECL > > > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. > hiz^aN z^iz^ik (h)a z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL (vocable?) > > There is a verb booz^iz^ik 'to wiggle' in Marino. in which boo- is the > outer instrumental 'by shooting', here essentially 'spontaneously'. The > hi-locative paradigm (with regular verbs) is A1 yaa-, A2 hira-, A3 hi-. > This might be relevant here and above in terms of -ya-, but wa-(h)i-(h)a- > Obj3p-LOC-A1 is wi(i)a-, not waya- > > > Hicha kolo hinuk lo innag le wi dokan nana. hic^akoro hinuNk ro iNnaNk(i)re wi dookaNnaN=naN friend woman they follow me ?? I court (them?) HironaNk 'to follow', A1 hiroanaNk, so that I think hiroiNnaNk must be A12 or P1. RukaNnaN' 'to court, to woo', A1 duukaN'naN, plus declarative =naN (postvocalic form). > > Hizhan do maiku ka[,] zhe ske shununa. > hiz^aN z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one thus habitually DECL > > In this line I think the verb might be ru?aN 'to carry' or possibly > rogiguN 'to dare'. These have the first persons duu?aN and roagiguN, > respectively. Marino lists ruaiNgu 'lift up', which is clearly based on > the first and closer in form. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 8 19:19:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:19:02 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: A little more progress. > Hizhan, hodochuch ka, zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN hoduuc^uc^=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one I made him smart having thus habitually DECL The -ka in the first-third and fifth lines is presumably Lipkind's -ga "This suffix forms subordinate clauses which, if not connected causally with the principle clause, are yet associated in the sense of acompanying actions." Or, putting it another way, this is the conjunct marker, rather comparable to Omaha-Ponca egaN. Having failed utterly to recognize any plausible horuc^uc^ equivalent in Winnebago lexical materials I had ready access to, I started looking further afield and turned up Dakota yuthuta 'to make smart', 'smart' in the sense of 'sting': horuc^u'c^ would correspond regularly to a Dakota form like *oyu'thu'ta. The OP cognate of the root is -tti'de, which appears in naNtti'de 'to make a drumming noise with the feet'. It is, of course, risky to try to gloss one language based on another, not too closely related. Even different dialects of Dakota or Dhegiha sometimes vary significantly in their use of a particular form. However, for want of anything better, I am assuming "hodochuch ga" represents hoduu'c^uc^=ga, meaning something analogous to 'I having made him smart there' or 'I having struck him there'. I suppose the locative refers to an occasion or locality or body part. > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; hiz^aN waiagit?e=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one ... speak of having thus habitually DECL Here, after reflection, I think the underlying verb is more likely hit?e' 'to talk', which is the analog of OP i(y)e', incidentally, of which we were speaking recently. This might have a dative form 'to speak of someone' of the shape higit?e. > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. hiz^aN waiaz^iz^i =ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one ... whisper having thus habitually DECL (vocable?) A good parallel with hit?e might be z^iiz^i' 'to whisper', though this looks like it might be a hypothetical hiz^iiz^i, perhaps 'to whisper about'. Logically, it is possible that the inflected form here (and above) is 'they ... about me', but I'm not sure the forms work for that. In any event, it looks like the inflectional-locative string is the same in this line and the preceding one. > Hicha kolo hinuk lo innag le wi dokan nana. hic^akoro hinuNk ro iNnaNk(i)re wi dookaNnaN=naN friend woman they follow me ?? I court (them?) > HironaNk 'to follow', A1 hiroanaNk, so that I think hiroiNnaNk must be > A12 or P1. And I'm assuming that re represents (i)re, the third peson plural. > RukaNnaN' 'to court, to woo', A1 duukaN'naN, plus declarative =naN > (postvocalic form). > Hizhan do maiku ka[,] zhe ske shununa. hiz^aN =ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one having thus habitually DECL > In this line I think the verb might be ru?aN 'to carry' or possibly > rogiguN 'to dare'. These have the first persons duu?aN and roagiguN, > respectively. Marino lists ruaiNgu 'lift up', which is clearly based on > the first and closer in form. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Feb 8 19:42:03 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:42:03 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: Thanks, John. I gather we don't really have the stative verb system very well worked out yet for OP. The examples you have given are from Dorsey, and all are third person. The grammar for modern Omaha may have changed a bit, and we're looking for personal inflections here to build a conjugation paradigm. You may be right that ablaut may have to do more with proximate-obviative issues than with plurality; we need to pursue that angle more. Some verbs may apply only to inanimate objects, such as 'shallow' and 'deep' for water. Others may apply only to animate beings. Perhaps these are what you are referring to as 'experiencer verbs'; I'm not sure what all is included in this class. I think we have come up with a class of verbs that takes the patient pronoun set, applies almost exclusively to animate beings, and seems to behave pretty consistently. These verbs start with wa- and have the accent on the second syllable in the neutral form. The personal pronouns dhi- and probably wa- follow the initial wa-, and the pronoun oN- preceeds it, making the two syllables together oNwoN'-. Your example of wakhe'ga is typical: wakhe'ga 's/he is sick' oNwoN'khega 'I am sick' wadhi'khega 'you are sick' wawa'khega 'we are sick', or 'they are sick' Other words in this class seem to be: waxdhi' 'scared', 'frightened' was^ta'ge 'gentle', 'tame' was^u's^e 'kind-hearted' (often glossed 'brave') wasi'sige 'active', 'lively', 'clever', 'tought', 'spry' was^koN' 'energetic', 'strong' wase'koN 'fast', 'rapid', 'swift' wasni'de 'slow', 'tardy', 'late' waxpa'dhiN 'poor' waxu'be 'holy' wahe'he 'brittle', 'weak' wami' 'bloody' (as well as the noun, 'blood') We have been having a little trouble with the wa- ('us' & 'them') forms on some of our verbs, as you intimate. Some words, like toN'ga and s^toN'ga, are accepted readily in all forms including the wa-. Others seem to be acceptable with wa- only when the verb is preceeded by some other pronoun like woN'oNgidhe, woN'oNdoN, or s^e'ama. The words z^iN'ga, s^u'ga, bdhe'ka, gdhe'ze, gdhe'z^e, da', sagi' and nu'ka seem to fall into this category. My example of bi'ze now seems to have been particularly ill-chosen, as one of our speakers now seems to find wabi'ze/a unacceptable under any circumstance. Yet another interesting kink is that our speakers sometimes shift the accent to the last syllable of some multi-syllable stative verbs normally accented on the first syllable. Mark and I were told in our session on Friday that this is how one gives a comparative in Omaha: toN'ga - 'he is big' toNga' - 'he is bigger' oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in place of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite probable that I'm are confused on some things. Any further suggestions or comments on this would be very welcome! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 00:56:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:56:11 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks, John. I gather we don't really have the stative verb system > very well worked out yet for OP. Well, certainly not in regard to "proximate" marking and maybe wa plurals for the third person! Do you or Ardis have a better term for his? It really is something like conceptual proximacy or nearness or centrality in some sense, in Ardis's analysus, I think, but it's not really Agonnquian proximate/obviative marking. > The examples you have given are from Dorsey, and all are third person. > The grammar for modern Omaha may have changed a bit, and we're looking > for personal inflections here to build a conjugation paradigm. You may > be right that ablaut may have to do more with proximate-obviative issues > than with plurality; we need to pursue that angle more. I think we definitely need to establish what article sets work with the third person subjects in question. Maybe things work different for animates and inanimates? That's a fairly common Siouan pattern. It might not hurt to do a little context building in the elicitation, too, if that's not happening. I came to the conclusion - after my limited fieldwork, unfortunately - that that might alleviate some of the problems I was having with contexts. People often reacted to my examples by explaining that "people wouldn't say that." This would be a response to something like "I am tall" that seems perfectly natural in English, albeit even non-linguists are probably trained to a fairly high standard of tolerance decontextualization of academic languages like English by the educational system. The problem with "I am tall," by the way, was that it sounded like bragging. An ideal approach to contextualizaiton would be to work from a text offered by the speaker(s), but it might be possible to use arbitary scenarioes. Something like: "My brother got caught in the rain. He was really wet. He came home and dried off. Now he's dry. If he were talking to me he'd say "I'm dry." His friends were with him. Now they're dry." That sort of thing. > Some verbs may apply only to inanimate objects, such as 'shallow' and > 'deep' for water. Unfortunately, that seems to be true of a lot of statives. > Others may apply only to animate beings. Perhaps these are what you are > referring to as 'experiencer verbs'; I'm not sure what all is included > in this class. We've talked about these in the past. I think these are a difficult category to get hold of for Siouanists. I may be totally off track with them myself. They usually do have animate subjects. The subject governs patient or dative patient concord. However, there is a second noun in the frame, a theme I think it is sometimes called, the thing through which or by virtue of which the experiencer experiences the experience (sorry about that). A good example with a plain patient is - I believe - dhiNge' 'to lack, not to have'. The pattern is P1 aNdhiN'ge, P2 dhidhiN'ge, P12 wadhiN'ge, but this is clearly not a stative verb. There is an additonal element, the thing lacked. The thing lacked is the theme - if we can use that word. Is there a better oword? I suspect that in OP this thing lacked has to be a third person - that it would be unnatural or even impossible to lack a first, second, or inclusive person. Some form of periphrasis would be needed to address the concept. I have certainly never seen any examples like 'I don't have you'. A good example with dative patient concord seems to be git?e' 'for one's relative to be dead'. The kinship relation who has died is the theme. The inflectional pattern is P1 iNt?e', P2 dhit?e, P12 wet?e. Again, I don't think I've sen any examples like 'you are dead to me', though these a perhaps a bit more plausible, at least to anyone with with a Western, or at rather, European outlook. I think wakhe'ga is pretty much along these lines, but the body part that is the source of the illness is represented by wa-. I doubt you can say anything like 'I am sick to my stomach' with this verb, along the lines of *ni'gha ankhe'ga, though I've never asked. I think tha for this sort of hting you have to substitute ni(y)e 'to pain one', cf., ni'gha ni'e 'stomach ache'. This is also an experiencer, verb pattern, I believe, though the texts seem to have the experiencer pattern ni'gha i'nie, e.g. ni'gha aNdhaNnie 'my stomach pains me', and I'm not sure what the odds are between i'nie and nie. Anyway, I think that all the rather large class of wa-prefixed "statives" are probably actually experiencer verbs. Some may allow replacing wa with a noun, or even supplementing it. My point then is that experiencer verbs are not statives, though from a purely morphological point of view, they do mostly have just one patient inflection and are easily confused with statives, especially when it is not not always obvious from an English perspective that there is a second argument, as in the case of 'sick' or 'brave' or 'holy'. Nevertheless, I think that that in leaving experiencer verbs out of consideration we are making a serious error and one that will trip us up in various ways. For example, it would be extremely likely that experiencer verbs and statives would take proximate and plural marking in rather different ways. For one thing, there is another noun in the frame, and this might govern the plural/proximate marker or even a wa-prefix. For another, experiencer verbs do seem mostly to take animate "experiencer subjects" and animacy may also be relevant. (Here, in the interest of brevity, I've omitted the part of Rory's letter that lists specific wa-verbs that I suspect are experiencer verbs.) > We have been having a little trouble with the wa- ('us' & 'them') > forms on some of our verbs, as you intimate. Some words, like > toN'ga and s^toN'ga, are accepted readily in all forms including > the wa-. Others seem to be acceptable with wa- only when the > verb is preceeded by some other pronoun like woN'oNgidhe, > woN'oNdoN, or s^e'ama. The words z^iN'ga, s^u'ga, bdhe'ka, gdhe'ze, > gdhe'z^e, da', sagi' and nu'ka seem to fall into this category. > My example of bi'ze now seems to have been particularly ill-chosen, > as one of our speakers now seems to find wabi'ze/a unacceptable > under any circumstance. These all seem to me likely to be stative. The only thing I can think of is that some of the forms with wa- are effectively nominalizations, and the forms like s^e'=ama wabdhe'kka amount to 'these are thin things', whereas wabdhe'kka alone is just 'thing thing', and doens't make a good predication. > Yet another interesting kink is that our speakers sometimes > shift the accent to the last syllable of some multi-syllable > stative verbs normally accented on the first syllable. Mark and > I were told in our session on Friday that this is how one gives > a comparative in Omaha: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' Interesting. It may not be a comparative in the strict sense, but it does seem like some sort of focus-based accentual shift. > If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. > > oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' > oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' > > However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in > place of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: > > gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' > woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' > > Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite > probable that I'm are confused on some things. Any further > suggestions or comments on this would be very welcome! I wonder if some of the accented vowels are just long (...a=i > a:). This is one of the contexts where I used to think maybe there was length. It would be interesting to know what the pitch contours over these forms are. I suspect one of the things that trips people up in listening for accent is associating it with length (which is more or less an appropriate cue in English). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 01:27:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:27:15 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm sorry about all the typos in the preceding contribution. I am not the best typist, and, to top it off, my internet connection is a bit slow, so that the visual feedback associated with typing is somewhat off. Especially if I backspace to make a correction! In regard to experiencer verbs - by this I mean, essentially, a dative subject verb, like early New English think or seem, as in methinks or meseemeth. Or, for the students of Spanish, like olvidarse, as in se me olvido', or harking back to my ALM days, the full example is "Caramba, se me olvido' el cuaderno!" "Heck, it forgot itself to me the notebook!" i.e. "Heck, I forgot my notebook." Lots of languages have these, of course. I'm not sure if there are Algonquian analog, but methinks there are Muskogean ones. Note that, as far as I know, there is no way to get a first or second person inflection on ENE think or seem, or on modern Spanish olvidarse either for that matter. It's awkward to call these dative subject verbs in Siouan contexts, because dative is already being used for something rather different, and, of course, we would then have to refer to dhiNge' as a (non-dative) dative subject verb and git?e' as a dative dative subject verb. I feel like I have to draw a line somewhere, so I've settled on experiencer verb in lieu of dative subject verb. Another nice Omaha experiencer verb is giu'daN 'to like', literally 'to be good for one'. The example I'll never forget is the first witticism I ever understood (with a little help), i.e., Ni'NniN giu'daN=att(a)s^aN or 'She likes smoking a bit too much.' Literally, 'It is right up to tobacco is good for her.' The locative -a-tta plus s^aN 'completely', usually contracted to something like =ac^c^AN (voiceless or missing aN) is widely used for 'very'. This is not really a joke, but it caused everybody to chuckle in the context, so the elders explained it to me so I wouldn't feel left out. The first gloss is the one they offered. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 02:03:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:03:11 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: I will pass along an inspiration I had back in December or so. We got to discussing wa and what not and I set it aside. Call this my SSILA paper, albeit a somewhat offhanded one. It occurred to me that all my problems trying to explain Omaha-Ponca proximates historically come from starting with *pi = plural. But, of course, we know from the behavior of *pi with the inclusive, and with the plain first person in Winnebago, that *pi is NOT a plural, strictly speaking; rather, it is is augmentation marker, i.e., it means something like 'and some other guys'. A1 = 'I', and A1 + *pi = 'me and some other guys; nos alteres'; A2 = 'you', and A2 + *pi = 'you and some other guys; you all'; A12 = 'you and me', A12 + *pi = 'you and me and some other guys; us all'; A3 = 'he or she', A3 + *pi = 'him or her and some other guys'. So I asked myself, how do we get from 'him and some other guys' to 'he (proximate)', while just 'he' is 'he (obviative)'? And I answered myself (I was driving at the time), that doesn't work, but suppose *pi actually means 'X pre-eminently' or 'it was particularly X who'. That is, what if *pi was a sort of cleft construction, singling out a particular person among several for attention, but implying the participation of the others? In this case the plural reading, which is now the common one, e.g., A2 + *pi = 'you and some other guys' was origially 'it was particularly you who ...', which clearly implies the plural, i.e, that some other guys were also porentially participating. In Dhegiha, however, the combination A3 + *pi = 'it was particularly he who ...' has become not only 'he and some others' but also 'he (proximate)', or basically, the original reading preserved. Another way of looking at it is that if you start with proximity or focus, as the meaning of *pi, you can easily get to plural, while it's rather harder in the other direction. Of course, some of you may wonder what happens to the plural category in this case, but notice that the *pi "plural" is only reconstructed for Proto-Mississippi Valley. Other branches have other plurals. Also, it is rather weird to have the plural marker off at the other end of the verb, working idependently of the pronominals at the front, if it really has anything closely connected to do with them. But it is maybe not so weird to have a focus marker over there - a marker that does something independent of the pronominals, though involving them, and only later becomes a plural. I wonder if this assessment might not also offer a possible explanation of the *pi nominalizer in Dakotan, as in thi'=pi, etc. Seen this way, here it amounts to a sort of specific subject marker or inalienable possessor: 'she in particular lives (there)' or 'her dwelling' (which I believe is the historical Plains logic with respect to the gender of the owner of dwellings). I don't know if this specific subject logic works for *pi nominalizations in general, but it seems to work for thi'=pi. So, in a way, *pi 'specific subject' is the opposite of wa 'nonspecific object'. John E. Koont http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 05:35:12 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:35:12 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thinking on the wa ya aequence in the inflection of the second and third lines I think I've divined what it is. On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > Hizhan wa ya kitt'ehka[,] Zhe skeshunana; hiz^aN wiiagit?e=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one speaks of us having thus habitually DECL > > Here, after reflection, I think the underlying verb is more likely hit?e' > 'to talk', which is the analog of OP i(y)e', incidentally, of which we > were speaking recently. This might have a dative form 'to speak of > someone' of the shape higit?e. > > > Hizhan wa ya zhi zhi ka[,] zhe ske shun[u]na ya. hiz^aN wiiaz^iz^i =ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN one whispers about us having thus habitually DECL (vocable?) > > A good parallel with hit?e might be z^iiz^i' 'to whisper', though this > looks like it might be a hypothetical hiz^iiz^i, perhaps 'to whisper > about'. > Logically, it is possible that the inflected form here (and above) is > 'they ... about me', but I'm not sure the forms work for that. In any > event, it looks like the inflectional-locative string is the same in > this line and the preceding one. I have puzzled through Marten's complex generative analysis of the Winnebago inflectional string. Fortunately I took notes the last time ... I have also looked at Lipkind's tables of contractions. I have come to the conclusion that they are both saying that the P12 marker waNg...(h)a combines with the locative (h)i to produce wiia. Moreover Marten indicates that ii tends to sound as ee. I believe therefore that wa ya is intended to represent this wiia or P12 + (h)i. That is, P12 + (h)i comes out much like Omaha-Ponca wea in the same context. So I think perhaps that the verbs here are wiiagit?e=ga '(s)he having spoken of us' (waN + i + a + gi + t?e=ga) and wiiaz^iiz^i=ga '(s)he having whispered about us' (waN + i + a + z^iiz^i=ga). I'm still puzzled about line 5, and, of course, I hope it is clear that I could easily be way, way off about the rest, too. I'm always uneasy when I have to do this much guessing about the vocabulary, though I think I've been fairly careful to tie everything both to existing words and attested patterns of derivation on the one hand, and to a development of a text on the other. I suppose logically line 5 should reiterate the matter of line 1, or express some sort of successful denoument with regard to line 4, but as my first guesses on pretty much everything have been wrong, I wouldn't lay any money on my current suggested similarities to 'carry' or 'dare'. I am pretty sure it's all Winnebago. I don't think it was recorded in any of the usual sources, because the orthography is too different, and because the vocabulary hasn't found its way into the usual lists. Incidentally, while William Lipkind says that wa + (h)i/(h)a/(h)o contract to wi/wa/wo (presumably long), Marten says that they yield wawi/wawa/wawo. Anita Marten worked with John White Eagle of Madison, Wisconsin, from 6/63 to 2/64, and briefly with Howard White Thunder of Lyndon Station, Wisconsin. Lipkind thanks the residents of Winnebago, Nebraska and says the work was done in the summer of 1936. It's hard to say if the difference is temporal, dialectal, regional, or personal. In any event, it does show that there is some variation within the Winnebago speach community. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 9 05:49:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:49:00 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Song (Re: SSILA Bulletin #205) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > hiz^aN wiiagit?e=ga z^eeske=s^uNnuN= naN > one speaks of us having thus habitually DECL One more thought. You could render z^eeskge=s^uNnuN=naN as 'that's the way it goes', I think. It's an interesting effect, the way this repeated expression is inserted into the conjunct, conjunct, conjunct, main, conjunct structure of the song, after each conjunct. I'm not clear if this expression provides the main clause for the conjuncts, or if the conjuncts depend on the fourth line. Maybe it's ambiguous. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 9 16:14:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:14:46 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: > Mark and I were told in our > session on Friday that this is how one gives a comparative in Omaha: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' > Interesting. It may not be a comparative in the strict sense, but it does seem like some sort of focus-based accentual shift. In Kaw it seemed to me that accent shift in words like tto'Nga 'big, great' was related to where the accent fell on the preceding word in the clause. Basically, there seemed to be a constraint against two accented syllables juxtaposed across a word boundary. "Comparison of adjectives" only exists if a language has real adjectives, of course. I confess I'm deeply suspicious about finding it in languages where the noun modifiers are essentially verbs. Most Siouan and Muskogean "comparative" constructions I have been able to elicit were adverbial or nominal in nature. So 'Bill is taller than Sam' would come out 'Sam is tall: Bill is a lot tall', or something very close to that. And in naturally occurring texts, there just weren't any "comparatives", of course. I can't say what is happening here, but it looks very much like some sort of suffix. I seriously question whether there is real comparison of "adjectives", and I suspect we should look at some other kind of explanation. It is perfectly natural for anyone whose primary language is one like English to want/expect to find an exact equivalent for every grammatical category, and I'm sure that every language can express degrees of some quality in some way. All I can say for sure about these Omaha forms is that I didn't get anything like this in Kaw when I tried out comparatives. It will be interesting to see what you guys can discover about this. It's fascinating data. Bob > If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. > > oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' > oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' > > However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in place > of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: > > gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' > woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' > > Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite probable > that I'm are confused on some things. Any further suggestions or > comments on this would be very welcome! I wonder if some of the accented vowels are just long (...a=i > a:). This is one of the contexts where I used to think maybe there was length. It would be interesting to know what the pitch contours over these forms are. I suspect one of the things that trips people up in listening for accent is associating it with length (which is more or less an appropriate cue in English). From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 9 20:28:54 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:28:54 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: Most of this makes really good sense to me. I think one could do a convincing step-by-step analysis of the semantic shifts. Although we only have a pluralizing morpheme with the shape */-api/ in Mississippi Valley Siouan, there are good cognates in Crow and Hidatsa with the form /aapaa/ 'with' in Crow and /aapi/ 'with' in Hidatsa (the Crow is actually /aap + haa/, so the corresponding morph is just /aap-/, and there is really no problem with the vowel correspondences). Both have exactly the semantic associations John predicts for the earlier (and current?) meaning of the grammaticalized MVS cognates, but the CR and HI forms are still independent words as far as I know. The CSD file for this item also mentions the Dakotan particle /ob/ 'with' as a possible cognate, in which case Dakotan would have developed doublets. John Koontz writes: > Another way of looking at it is that if you start with proximity or focus, as the meaning of *pi, you can easily get to plural, while it's rather harder in the other direction. > Of course, some of you may wonder what happens to the plural category in this case, but notice that the *pi "plural" is only reconstructed for Proto-Mississippi Valley. Other branches have other plurals. Also, it is rather weird to have the plural marker off at the other end of the verb, working idependently of the pronominals at the front, if it really has anything closely connected to do with them. But it is maybe not so weird to have a focus marker over there - a marker that does something independent of the pronominals, though involving them, and only later becomes a plural. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Feb 9 21:40:02 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:40:02 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: --- "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > The CSD file for this item also mentions the Dakotan > particle /ob/ > 'with' as a possible cognate, in which case Dakotan > would have developed > doublets. If someone asked me to guess what the origin of ob 'with' might be, I'd spontaneously come up with the verb opha 'to join (someone in doing something)'. Lakota has lots of postpositions that have arisen from full verbs, which are often subject to truncation (i.e. the final vowel is dropped and the voicing of the now word-final consonant changes) in the process of grammaticalization. An example of this is kah^log 'though', which originates in kah^loka 'to pierce'. Regina __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From rankin at ku.edu Mon Feb 9 23:40:55 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:40:55 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: The analysis of /ob/ 'with' in the CSD is either Dick Carter's, David Rood's or John Koontz's (I don't remember which), and I can't vouch for it. I can and do vouch for the Crow and Hidatsa forms, which were provided by Randy Graczyk and Wes Jones respectively. They match in both V and C. Ob would have an anomalous V; not a good sign. Dakotan -api (reanalysed as just -pi after /a/ replaced /e/ in many verb forms) is a clear cognate however. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "REGINA PUSTET" To: Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:40 PM Subject: RE: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer > --- "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > > > > The CSD file for this item also mentions the Dakotan > > particle /ob/ > > 'with' as a possible cognate, in which case Dakotan > > would have developed > > doublets. > > If someone asked me to guess what the origin of ob > 'with' might be, I'd spontaneously come up with the > verb opha 'to join (someone in doing something)'. > Lakota has lots of postpositions that have arisen from > full verbs, which are often subject to truncation > (i.e. the final vowel is dropped and the voicing of > the now word-final consonant changes) in the process > of grammaticalization. An example of this is kah^log > 'though', which originates in kah^loka 'to pierce'. > > Regina > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > From pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Feb 10 00:53:30 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:53:30 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <002801c3ef66$3cde9a70$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: --- "R. Rankin" wrote: > The analysis of /ob/ 'with' in the CSD is either > Dick Carter's, David Rood's or > John Koontz's (I don't remember which), and I can't > vouch for it. I can and do > vouch for the Crow and Hidatsa forms, which were > provided by Randy Graczyk and > Wes Jones respectively. They match in both V and C. > Ob would have an anomalous > V; not a good sign. Dakotan -api (reanalysed as > just -pi after /a/ replaced /e/ > in many verb forms) is a clear cognate however. It would be interesting to check on the etymology of opha 'to join' as well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, related. The semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just to close to be neglected, at least to me. Regina __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 07:07:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:07:22 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <20040210005330.46933.qmail@web40011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > It would be interesting to check on the etymology of opha 'to join' as > well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, > related. The semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just to > close to be neglected, at least to me. Now that she points it out, I agree with Regina that ob seems like it might derive from o'phA, which in Buechel is glossed 'to go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. This seems to derive from a more complex gloss in Riggs 'to go with, to follow; to pursue, as opa aya [i.e., ophA + ayA 'to go' form 'to pursue']; to go to , attend, as a school or meeting, to be present at; to be a member of, as an association or church; to go in, as in a canoe ...'. We've just verified that Dakota verbs in final ChV (aspirated stop) can reduce to -C (final unaspirated stop) in subordinated forms. In the CSD the Crow-Hidatsa forms and ob are only mentioned in the over all notes for this slip. I don't know anything about the history of this slip. I think the grammatical slips rather languished after the first year. It looks like this one could use some modifications in light of a better current appreciation of why Dhegiha plurals sometimes end in -e or -a instead of -i (gender-coding declaratives e or a?), and the morphophonemics of the Omaha-Ponca plural are eliminated. It seems to antedate the "proximate" terminology for Dhegiha third person singulars with "plural" marking. Actually, I am pretty amazed to discover that there are Crow-Hidatsa forms that might provide an explanation of the origin of +(a)pi that is in line with the 'pre-eminent among others' sort of focus that I was appealing to, and I appreciate Bob making the connection and pointing it out. What the slip says is that Hidatsa has aapi 'with' and Crow has a'appaa in which the latter part -paa derives from the common adverbializer -haa, which looks in turn like a cognate of the =ha postposition in Omaha-Ponca that is glossed 'in places, in directions'. For example, du'(u)ba=ha 'in four places', dhabndhiN=haN 'in three parties', gu'=di=ha 'further off (yonder direction)', etc. This is particularly common with numerals and in songs. I suppose this analysis requires that the Proto-Crow-Hidatsa form is *a'api, and Crow has =haa added to reduced *a'ap? I'm vague on what happens to aspiration in Crow-Hidatsa. I think it more or less disappears, i.e., that *hp and p, for example, behave the same. So, PS *hpa(re) 'bitter' with Hi (ara)pari 'bile', OP ppa 'bitter', and also PS *paN(he) 'call', with Hi paa (imp. sg. pah) 'shout', OP baN. 'call'. Now, if the PCH forms is *a'api and not *a'aphaa, it seems unlikely that the root here is the root in Da o'phA, which looks more like the 'go, travel' root *phE that appears as -hE in Omaha-Ponca, e.g., (udh)uhE 'to follow (a trail)', Osage (odh)o[ps^]e, IO (ir)owe(=are). (This is the comparison made in Dorsey 1895, if I recall, and I think it is correct.) In fact, the two forms look like cognates, though the CSD seems to cross up the OP form with some other Dhegiha -hV forms probably of a different origin and compares Da okhihe 'follow' instead. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 08:29:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:29:42 -0700 Subject: OP Accent (was RE: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DD9@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' > > In Kaw it seemed to me that accent shift in words like tto'Nga 'big, > great' was related to where the accent fell on the preceding word in the > clause. Basically, there seemed to be a constraint against two accented > syllables juxtaposed across a word boundary. In this case there's a pronominal shielding against this affect in the second case, but I agree that a comparative per se seems an unlikely explanation. But if there were a different degree of emphasis, a comparison might be implicit. In the Dorsey OP texts avoiding accent on the preceding word seems irrelevant, in the sense that we find mikka' ttaN'ga 'big raccoon', iNs^ta' ttaN'ga 'big eye', and so on, but tta's^ka-hi ttaNga'=xti 'very big oak tree', ttaNga'=kkiz^i 'when it is big', ttaNga'-dheha 'large around', ttaNga'=bi, a'higi ttaNga' 'a great many'. My argument used to be that forms that did this had different accentual pattens when they had enclitics attached, or when they were modifiers vs. independent verbs (often with enclitics). I started noticing that accent was fairly moveable in Dorsey, at least for some words, about the time I ran out of time on my dissertation. A very awkward time to notice that I didn't understand accent as well as I had thought. Of course, another possibility is that English speakers, including Dorsey, hear accent all wrong, or miss length changes that control it. I definitely stumbled almost invariably in recording accent until I started looking for HL patterns (inspired by Ken Miner's description of Winnebago and Randy's description of Crow). As soon as I started doing that Mr. Wolfe stopped correcting every word and looking puzzled. On various occasions I was forcibly recalled to a realization that a word pronounced with English intonation was so wrong sounding as to be unrecognizable. If the intonation wasn't approximately right people wouldn't even attempt to parse what I'd said. As to how this might account for Dorsey's patterns, imagine that ttaNga'=kkiz^i is ttaN(H)gaa(L)=kki(L)z^i(L) or something that gets heard as ttaNga'=kkiz^i, where, for the moment, ' marks "English style" accent. I can definitely put "English style" accent on the L in a HL, and I think what I'm doing is putting length plus maybe a slight fall there. I also wonder if my ear doesn't more or less ignore the rather pronounced HL business of Omaha accent in favor of the slighter LHL I produce in the the second syllable. The first is "just that sing-song thing" while the second is "real accent." I do know one place where Dorsey and Fletcher & LaFlesche between them seem to agree that there is a patterned difference in accent, and that is in "female vocatives." A certain number female-speech vocatives are marked with either initial accent, or final (on the vocative particle) accent or both, as opposed to the male term with accent on the intervening second syllable. For example, look at Fletcher & LaFlesche, p. 315, last column where we see Dadi'ha, TigoN'ha, Negi'ha, Timi'ha (male forms), but Da'diha, Ti'goNha, Negiha (no marking), Timiha' (female forms), and so on. Reading between the lines, I suspect that the f pattern is really not CV'CVCV alternating with CVCVCV', but CV'CVCV', whatever that may mean in intonational terms. (I only worked with male speakersand don't recall noticing anything like the "female" pattern.) And in Dorsey, z^iNdhe'ha 'elder brother' (m) (also z^iN'dheha'), dadi'ha 'father' (m), but dadiha' 'father' (f), ttinuha' 'elder brother' (f), ttigaNha' 'grandfather' (f), etc. Since the male forms sometimes follow the female pattern (though infrequently), and the female forms sometimes follow the male pattern (though infrequently), I'm thinking that the pattern has something to do with a pattern of emphasis or emotional coloring that is socially more appropriate for females than males, but not absolutely sex-associated. I notice that both sexes are regularly reported to say kkaNha' 'grandmother' and (iN')naNha(u)' 'mother', so perhaps the "female" pattern amounts to "sweetening." (I used to work a lot with female computer programmers, and got in the habit of agreeing to things with a nice bright pleasant falling intonation on "OK!" I then accidentally used that in talking with a visiting male math professor, who swiveled around and stared at me for a second in surprise. After that I was careful to bark "Sure thing!" in a particularly gruff tone when agreeing with him.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 08:48:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:48:42 -0700 Subject: OP Accent (was RE: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Another vocative shift, though in ths case it is between the vocative and the referential form. Ths is very regular in the texts. nudaN'haNga=akha 'the warleader' nu'daNhaNga' 'o warleader' I find both nu'daN and nudaN' for 'warpath'. I didn't notice a conditioning factor. I did notice one anu'daN 'I go on the warpath'. I hadn't previously realized this form could be inflected, and I'm not sure it is very frequently. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 14:33:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:33:41 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: > It would be interesting to check on the etymology of > opha 'to join' as well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. > -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, related. The > semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just > to close to be neglected, at least to me. I wonder if there are other instances of aspirates reducing to voiced stops (or nasals) word- or syllable-finally? I know this happens to /p, t, k/ --> /b, l/d, g/, but I'm a little surprised to see it with /ph/. I'm no Dakotanist though, so I defer to you guys on these sound changes. The only /ophE/ I know of in Dhegiha is the verb 'step, tread, follow a path'. I'll look for 'join'. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 14:46:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:46:44 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: > Now that she points it out, I agree with Regina that ob seems like it > might derive from o'phA, which in Buechel is glossed 'to go with, follow; > be present at, take part in'. This seems to derive from a more complex > gloss in Riggs 'to go with, to follow; to pursue, as opa aya [i.e., ophA + > ayA 'to go' form 'to pursue']; to go to , attend, as a school or meeting, > to be present at; to be a member of, as an association or church; to go > in, as in a canoe ...'. We've just verified that Dakota verbs in final > ChV (aspirated stop) can reduce to -C (final unaspirated stop) in > subordinated forms. OK, that answers my questions about the aspirates reducing to sonorants syllable-finally. And Dhegiha /ophe'/ 'step, follow', then, is the same as DA /opha/. > I suppose this analysis requires that the Proto-Crow-Hidatsa form is > *a'api, and Crow has =haa added to reduced *a'ap? I think the status of /-haa/ was pointed out by Randy, but in any event I defer to him in all matters Crow. > I'm vague on what happens to aspiration in Crow-Hidatsa. I think it more > or less disappears, i.e., that *hp and p, for example, behave the same. > So, PS *hpa(re) 'bitter' with Hi (ara)pari 'bile', OP ppa 'bitter', and > also PS *paN(he) 'call', with Hi paa (imp. sg. pah) 'shout', OP baN. > 'call'. I did an MALC/Siouan Conf. paper in Boulder on the PSI "C+h aspirates". There is direct evidence from the paradigm of 'speak' that aspiration was simply lost in Mandan. As I recall there was indirect evidence for the same loss in Crow and Hidatsa, but I'd have to get the paper out for the details. You probably have it in the MALC volume. Crow and Hidatsa do have some C+h aspirates, but I don't think we have cognates for them and I am guessing that they are secondary. Lots more work there though. . . . > Now, if the PCH forms is *a'api and not *a'aphaa, it seems unlikely that > the root here is the root in Da o'phA, which looks more like the 'go, > travel' root *phE that appears as -hE in Omaha-Ponca, e.g., (udh)uhE 'to > follow (a trail)', Osage (odh)o[ps^]e, IO (ir)owe(=are). (This is the > comparison made in Dorsey 1895, if I recall, and I think it is correct.) > In fact, the two forms look like cognates, though the CSD seems to cross > up the OP form with some other Dhegiha -hV forms probably of a different > origin and compares Da okhihe 'follow' instead. That needs to be fixed. The problem is that I cannot do any editing on the CSD entries as we discover these things because there is no editable computer file. We'll have to fix that too next Summer sometime. Bob From napshawin at msn.com Tue Feb 10 15:47:29 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:47:29 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: FOR WHAT ITS WORTH: >Now that she points it out, I agree with Regina that ob seems like it >might derive from o'phA, opxa means to be included, or to include one's self in going or doing something with others, if one is going with others we can say 'ob ye' or 'opxa' or 'opxa ic'iye'... opxa and ob mean exactly the same thing, ob is just a short cut... I try to help you all in this way, by explaining the Lakxota words when i can .... This seems to derive from a more complex >gloss in Riggs 'to go with, to follow; to pursue, as opa aya [i.e., ophA + >ayA 'to go' form 'to pursue']; to go to , attend, as a school or meeting, >to be present at; to be a member of, as an association or church; to go >in, as in a canoe ...'. BE CAREFUL. THE D DIALECT USES THE TERM A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE L DIALECT. FOR US IT WOULD SEEM ungrammatical to say 'opa aya' which is pure Dakxota, to pursue for us would be 'pasi aya pi' so we would n't say 'opa aya' in the same way, not to mean the same thing, because our dialect is more particular about how things should be said or how words should be used. pi doesn't fit into the picture here at all with ob or opxa, unless we say 'they' included themselves or 'they' went with someone 'opxa pi' or 'ob eyayab' or 'ob iyaya pi' but we can't say 'opxa iyaya pi' I hope all this makes sense _________________________________________________________________ Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Feb 10 16:32:54 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:32:54 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: In the Relation de l'Abbe de Gallinee from 1669, and in the 1876 version of Margry (Decouvertes et etablissements des Francais), where the Ohio River is discussed on page 116), as well as in Hanna (1911, Wilderness Trail, Vol. 1, p. 121, we find that down the Ohio from Iroquoia ones encounters, first, the Andaste, then Shawnee, then a great rapids (Falls of Ohio at Louisville), then Outagamie, then "land of the Iskousogos," and finally the "land of the wild cattle" (presumably the Illinois prairies from modern Wabash westward). I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan vocable. Thank you, Michael From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 18:23:28 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:23:28 -0600 Subject: ophe' Message-ID: Although it's hard to prove, I suspect this may be a composite of the Mississippi Valley Siouan */he/ 'be in a place; locative be' that we find compounded in the positional auxiliaries (virtually all of them), niNk-he, thaN-he, adhiN-he, k-he. So it would be /op/ (ob) + /he/ 'be with in a location'. At any rate, it's a nice idea and it fits what we see. bob From wablenica at mail.ru Tue Feb 10 18:41:01 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:41:01 +0300 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <006801c3efe2$f572ba90$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Hello all, It looks that there are (were) two "opha" verbs: o'pxa, o'wapxa, o'uNpxapi, "to join; follow; participate" in Boas&Deloria, and opxA', owa'pxe, uNko'pxapi, "to go by way of". Tuesday, February 10, 2004, 5:33:41 PM, R.Rankin wrote: >> It would be interesting to check on the etymology of >> opha 'to join' as well. Maybe all three forms, i.e. >> -pi, ob, and opha, are, ultimately, related. The >> semantic fit of ob 'with' and opha 'to join' is just >> to close to be neglected, at least to me. RR> I wonder if there are other instances of aspirates reducing to voiced stops (or RR> nasals) word- or syllable-finally? I know this happens to /p, t, k/ --> /b, RR> l/d, g/, but I'm a little surprised to see it with /ph/. I'm no Dakotanist RR> though, so I defer to you guys on these sound changes. RR> The only /ophE/ I know of in Dhegiha is the verb 'step, tread, follow a path'. RR> I'll look for 'join'. Cf. Boas & Deloria "Dakota Grammar", Page 35. Outside of the CVC group contraction of verbs ending in a occurs in the groups pha and kha.?All the contracted forms are adverbial. chapha' to stab, icha'p, acha'p sticking in, on it; chopha' to wade, mnicho'p wading in water; o'pha to join, op in company with several; napha' to flee; ina'p hiding behind, ai'nap on the farther side of (hidden by); with the verbs of arrival i, hi, gli, khi, -napha does not contract: hina'pha to come out from; otha'pha to follow in the tracks of someone, oye'othap following tracks, atha'p following on (the heels of someone), i'thap soon after, already; i'tkokhipha to go to meet face to face, itko'p going out to meet someone who is coming; khapha' to beat in a contest, to have a superabundance (akha'p exceedingly) Others do not contract, p.e.: akhi'pha to happen to meet face to face; opha' to go by a certain way, but wato'pha to row a boat (wa'ta-opha'), forms wato'p; apha' to strike; ithuN'pha to admire, be careful with; ikho'pha to fear lest; khoki'pha to be afraid; aho'pha to honor, to observe a law In the group kha we find: anuN'kha(taNhaN) anuN'k on both sides; to'kha, to'k it is some way, how is it -- Best regards, Constantine mailto:wablenica at mail.ru From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 10 20:27:56 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:27:56 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan vocable. Well, as it stands it looks remarably unlike typical (Mississippi Valley) Siouan forms, but this is more of a fuzzy instinct based on what phonemes are where - call it typical morpheme patterns or canonical form - than any outright impossibilities. I assume the final s is to be taken as part of the form, and not a French morpheme? I suppose something like you could see in the initial isk- something like ieska < i(y)e 'to speak; word(s)' + ska 'clear, white', which is fairly widely used for translators and speakers of the local language and sometimes as a self-designation. But you have to assume that had something else appended to it to account for the -usogos/usokos. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 10 20:44:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:44:50 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: It's a mystery to me too. Looks like nothing I've ever seen. I assume if it's French spelling that it represents something like [iskuzogo], with or without the final consonant. But that doesn't give me any bright ideas. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:28 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Iskousogos On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan > vocable. Well, as it stands it looks remarably unlike typical (Mississippi Valley) Siouan forms, but this is more of a fuzzy instinct based on what phonemes are where - call it typical morpheme patterns or canonical form - than any outright impossibilities. I assume the final s is to be taken as part of the form, and not a French morpheme? I suppose something like you could see in the initial isk- something like ieska < i(y)e 'to speak; word(s)' + ska 'clear, white', which is fairly widely used for translators and speakers of the local language and sometimes as a self-designation. But you have to assume that had something else appended to it to account for the -usogos/usokos. From tleonard at prodigy.net Tue Feb 10 21:26:24 2004 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:26:24 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: Can't make hide nor hair out of "Iskousogos"......but I recall the word "Outagamie" as coming from Sac & Fox (Mesquakie) [?] not sure. TML From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Feb 11 00:10:58 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:10:58 -0500 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Hey! I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural. It is a pluralizer in Lakota as well (as Violet Catches (Thanks Violet & I hope I am not misunderstanding/misrepresenting your information) pointed out in her explanation, it's used with 'they'). Sometimes, I'm dense with the historical though. I think that analyzing pi as plural actually leads to a very coherent grammaticalization pathway to its role as proximate marker. I pasted a piece of the diss below which discusses it. It's not a final version (God grant that someday such a thing will exist); comments are great. Best, Ardis ... Third person plural verbal marking is also used as a backgrounding device. That is, when the subject is unimportant/unspecified, third person plural verbal morphology without an overt subject NP is used (51). 51. Khi Itigonthai akha monzhon thon wethinwin-bi a- i.... And Grandfather the land the sold it- pl he said-PL 'And Grandfather said that the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) In the subordinate clause in (51), the land is of central concern and the person(s) selling it are backgrounded (also reflected in the use of the passive in the translation). In the Omaha construction, the third person plural subject governs the plural affix and the third person singular object ?land? is zero-marked. The plural subject, which has no overt NP and is relatively unimportant, co-occurs with a singular object which has an overt NP and is of central concern. Such occurrences could be re-analyzed as a singular object governing a plural morpheme. Another example of a singular NP occurring with plural verb marking (which refers to a subject without an overt NP) is given in (52). 52. Egithe itonge thinkhe tizhebegthon gaxa-bi-ton-ama, It happened sister the door make-pl-AUX-EVID a khe agthonkonhon konton-bi egon ubatihetha-bi-ton- ama. Arm the on each side tie-pl having hung up -pl-AUX-EVID ?And behold their sister had been made into a door: having been tied by her arms on both sides, she had been hung up.? (JOD 81.19) In (52), again a singular object co-occurs with plural verb morphology. (And again, passive voice is used for translation.) Were the plural to be re-analyzed as marking the object ?girl? in some way, it could not be marking number, but rather must be marking some sort of discourse status (what is of central concern). A pattern of marking third singular subjects with the 'plural' to show discourse status (rather than number) could logically result from such a reanalysis. As all other person forms overtly mark the verb, this reanalysis is possible only with third person singulars. ... From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Feb 11 03:23:24 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:23:24 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan vocable. It brings to mind Ojibway ishkw- 'last, end, remaining'. There is, e.g., eshkwagama 'last lake (in a chain)'. But it's probably one of those names whose meaning, absent additional sources, is irretrievable. Alan From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed Feb 11 10:27:00 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:00 +0000 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: It put me in mind of Algonquian names such as Missisauga. Could it be Alg? Anthony >>> rankin at ku.edu 10/02/2004 20:44:50 >>> It's a mystery to me too. Looks like nothing I've ever seen. I assume if it's French spelling that it represents something like [iskuzogo], with or without the final consonant. But that doesn't give me any bright ideas. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:28 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Iskousogos On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if there's any chance "Iskousogos" is a Siouan > vocable. Well, as it stands it looks remarably unlike typical (Mississippi Valley) Siouan forms, but this is more of a fuzzy instinct based on what phonemes are where - call it typical morpheme patterns or canonical form - than any outright impossibilities. I assume the final s is to be taken as part of the form, and not a French morpheme? I suppose something like you could see in the initial isk- something like ieska < i(y)e 'to speak; word(s)' + ska 'clear, white', which is fairly widely used for translators and speakers of the local language and sometimes as a self-designation. But you have to assume that had something else appended to it to account for the -usogos/usokos. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 11 17:00:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:00:24 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if Marquette's 8AB8SKIG8 has any Siouan features. I tend > to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I notice > there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself Wablenica, > which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think that's available here. Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I think I remember someone having a different insight into it. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Feb 11 17:09:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:09:13 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: Hey Ardis! Don't we have at least three issues playing here with the =bi and =i markers? 1. Plurality 2. Proximatization (focus on subject) 3. Passivization (focus removed from grammatical subject) I can see getting passivization from plurality, as is common in Dakotan, and it seems to me that that's what your examples show. But how we change that into focus on the subject, or even the object, eludes me. > 51. Khi Itigonthai akha monzhon thon wethinwin-bi a- > i.... > And Grandfather the land the sold it- pl > he said-PL > 'And Grandfather said that the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) For this one, you seem to be arguing that moNzhoN', as the object, gets the focus in the subordinate clause by passivizing the subject of the sellers while using =bi as a pluralizer. But if that leads to proximatization of moNzhoN', then shouldn't moNzhoN' be marked with the proximate positional akha' rather than dhoN? Best, Rory are2 at buffalo.edu Sent by: To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu owner-siouan at lists.c cc: olorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer 02/10/2004 06:10 PM Please respond to siouan John, Hey! I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural. It is a pluralizer in Lakota as well (as Violet Catches (Thanks Violet & I hope I am not misunderstanding/misrepresenting your information) pointed out in her explanation, it's used with 'they'). Sometimes, I'm dense with the historical though. I think that analyzing pi as plural actually leads to a very coherent grammaticalization pathway to its role as proximate marker. I pasted a piece of the diss below which discusses it. It's not a final version (God grant that someday such a thing will exist); comments are great. Best, Ardis ... Third person plural verbal marking is also used as a backgrounding device. That is, when the subject is unimportant/unspecified, third person plural verbal morphology without an overt subject NP is used (51). 51. Khi Itigonthai akha monzhon thon wethinwin-bi a- i.... And Grandfather the land the sold it- pl he said-PL 'And Grandfather said that the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) In the subordinate clause in (51), the land is of central concern and the person(s) selling it are backgrounded (also reflected in the use of the passive in the translation). In the Omaha construction, the third person plural subject governs the plural affix and the third person singular object ?land? is zero-marked. The plural subject, which has no overt NP and is relatively unimportant, co-occurs with a singular object which has an overt NP and is of central concern. Such occurrences could be re-analyzed as a singular object governing a plural morpheme. Another example of a singular NP occurring with plural verb marking (which refers to a subject without an overt NP) is given in (52). 52. Egithe itonge thinkhe tizhebegthon gaxa-bi-ton-ama, It happened sister the door make-pl-AUX-EVID a khe agthonkonhon konton-bi egon ubatihetha-bi-ton- ama. Arm the on each side tie-pl having hung up -pl-AUX-EVID ?And behold their sister had been made into a door: having been tied by her arms on both sides, she had been hung up.? (JOD 81.19) In (52), again a singular object co-occurs with plural verb morphology. (And again, passive voice is used for translation.) Were the plural to be re-analyzed as marking the object ?girl? in some way, it could not be marking number, but rather must be marking some sort of discourse status (what is of central concern). A pattern of marking third singular subjects with the 'plural' to show discourse status (rather than number) could logically result from such a reanalysis. As all other person forms overtly mark the verb, this reanalysis is possible only with third person singulars. ... From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 11 17:31:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:31:41 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: I somehow thought that was "Wabash" (and Algonquian). Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:00 AM To: Siouan List Subject: Re: Iskousogos On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > I was wondering if Marquette's 8AB8SKIG8 has any Siouan features. I > tend to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I > notice there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself > Wablenica, which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think that's available here. Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I think I remember someone having a different insight into it. From mckay020 at umn.edu Wed Feb 11 17:40:13 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (cantemaza) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:40:13 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Regarding wabdenica This is what iwas taught. wanbdi-eagle nica-lacks or doesn't have, is without Each tiospaye (extended family) had their own fla, some still do. If a child was orphaned, he or she was seen as not having that flag (tawapaha-ta-her/his, wa-wanbdi, pa-head, ha-skin or hide) anymore hence wanbdenica. -Cantemaza de miye. Koontz John E wrote: >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > >>I was wondering if Marquette's 8AB8SKIG8 has any Siouan features. I tend >>to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I notice >>there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself Wablenica, >>which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? >> >> > >Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. > >/waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think >it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final -ku >can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are >various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think >that's available here. > >Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a >stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly on >morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. >There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. > >The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous in >form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I think I >remember someone having a different insight into it. > >. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Feb 11 18:03:20 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:03:20 +0100 Subject: Wablenica - was: Iskousogos Message-ID: >Regarding wabdenica This is what iwas taught. wanbdi-eagle nica-lacks or doesn't have, is without Each tiospaye (extended family) had their own fla, some still do. If a child was orphaned, he or she was seen as not having that flag (tawapaha-ta-her/his, wa-wanbdi, pa-head, ha-skin or hide) anymore hence wanbdenica.<< Shouldn't we expect _wanblenica/wanbdebica_ instead of _wablenica/wabdenica-, then? Alfred From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Feb 11 18:04:42 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:04:42 -0800 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and 'Iskousogos'? Dave > I somehow thought that was "Wabash" (and Algonquian). Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:00 AM > To: Siouan List > Subject: Re: Iskousogos > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> I was wondering if Marquette's 8ab8skig8 has any Siouan features. I >> tend to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I >> notice there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself >> Wablenica, which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? > > Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. > > /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think > it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final > -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are > various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think > that's available here. > > Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a > stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly > on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. > There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. > > The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous > in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I > think I remember someone having a different insight into it. > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Feb 11 18:45:52 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:45:52 +0100 Subject: Wablenica - was: IskousogosRe: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Message-ID: >[...] Third person plural verbal marking is also used as a backgrounding device. That is, when the subject is unimportant/unspecified, third person plural verbal morphology without an overt subject NP is used [...]<< This is a pretty common feature also outside American Native tongues: 1) Italian (etc.): e.g. 'dicono' lit.: "they say" -> it is said; 'mi chiamano' lit.: "they call me" -> I'm called/my name is 2) In Hebrew, the 'unspecified' masculine 3rd pers. plural form seems to be used for exactly the same purpose (not unlike in Italian, usually translated as passive voice or - e.g. in German - as an impersonal paraphrase "man sagt/man nennt mich"). In Hebrew, there's still a very special pecularity (somehow reminding me of Dakota _-pi_: For this grammatical purpose, the 3rd p pl maskuline goes *without* the personal pronoun! E.g. _'omrim_ -> it is said, different from _hem 'omrim_ -> they (males) say. BTW, only the male plural form can be used this way (hen 'omrot -> they (fem.) say with the focus on the speakers). Alfred From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Feb 11 19:08:23 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:08:23 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: In a review of my Dorsey Chiwere vocabulary slips which I havenot looked for a decade it seems that the roll is rather scratched up. Some of it is from use and then again, there's a lot more in it than just from use. It seems like the cellulose itself has broken down, because the patterns. But that may be the original that's broken down, or the film I have here. I don't know how to tell. And I never did get through all the slips to write them down. There's lots of data online about the decay of cellulose acetate film, though it all mentions that after 1950 NAA filming was done mostly on poly-something-or-other. The NAA SIRIS catalogue lists the "Tciwere and Winnebago Folk-lore, including Iowa Cults" as being the first item on the reel that also contains the slips. I am aware that Mark, John and perhaps Bob have copies of the Dhegiha Dorsey material and OP vocabulary slips, and wonder if they found those slips to be in similar condition. I also wonder if anyone else got a copy of the Chiwere Dorsey MS, and if their section of the MicroFilm reveals a such deterioration. At this point, I wonder if I need to determine whether to order a new copy from NAA, or if the film they have on hand at the NAA is in bad shape. Any thoughts will be appreciated. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:31 AM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > Yup, typically Dorsey typed his slips, but from time to time there are > handwritten ones. And many typed slips have handwritten notations/additions, > etc. on them. I think you want everything that is there. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > I'm looking a the JOD reels as I am writing this (multi tasking, enit?). The > > majority of the ms cards with translations appear to have been typed. > > > > However, I've encountered a few ms cards with translations that have NOT > > been typed on adjoining cards. > > > > Also, I've encountered ms cards that appear to have been typed... but there > > are differences between the two. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:03:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:03:53 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <006801c3efe2$f572ba90$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I wonder if there are other instances of aspirates reducing to voiced > stops (or nasals) word- or syllable-finally? I know this happens to /p, > t, k/ --> /b, l/d, g/, but I'm a little surprised to see it with /ph/. > I'm no Dakotanist though, so I defer to you guys on these sound changes. I think the example we were discussing was anuNkha ~ anuNg 'on both sides'. Ophe(ya) ~ ob is the only other one I am sure of. It could be that such pairs can only exist where the is an historical pattern of VG+hV, i.e., where the aspirate derives from an historical C-h morpheme boundary, i.e., where both the VG and VChV forms have coexisted since Proto-Mississippi Valley. Or I suppose such a pattern in a few cases might lead to other examples by analogy. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:10:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:10:16 -0700 Subject: =ha (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi ...) In-Reply-To: <007a01c3efe4$c7bbc720$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > *a'api, and Crow has =haa added to reduced *a'ap? > > I think the status of /-haa/ was pointed out by Randy, but in any event > I defer to him in all matters Crow. As do I! I suppose a cognate =ha(a) could also explain forms like anuNg ! anuNkha 'on both sides' in Dakotan. Incidentally, the ennumerative quality of this form is quite in line with the use of =ha in Omaha-Ponca, cf. examples like pp(e)e'dhaNba=ha 'in seven places'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:27:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:27:15 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, CATCHES VIOLET wrote: > opxa means to be included, or to include one's self in going or doing > something with others, if one is going with others we can say 'ob ye' or > 'opxa' or 'opxa ic'iye'... opxa and ob mean exactly the same thing, ob > is just a short cut... I try to help you all in this way, by explaining > the Lakxota words when i can .... And I think I speak for everyone in saying that it is greatly appreciated! > BE CAREFUL. THE D DIALECT USES THE TERM A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE L > DIALECT. > FOR US IT WOULD SEEM ungrammatical to say 'opa aya' which is pure Dakxota, > to pursue for us would be 'pasi aya pi' so we would n't say 'opa aya' in > the same way, not to mean the same thing, because our dialect is more > particular about how things should be said or how words should be used. It's very useful to have your comments here on the difference between Teton and Santee usage. It's been observed that Buechel relies strongly on the Riggs dictionary, right to the wording of the entries, and it's interesting to see here that the omitted material was omitted with cause. > pi doesn't fit into the picture here at all with ob or opxa, unless we say > 'they' included themselves or 'they' went with someone 'opxa pi' or 'ob > eyayab' or 'ob iyaya pi' but we can't say 'opxa iyaya pi' > I hope all this makes sense Yes, and it draws attention to a point that I may not have made clear, which is that I am trying to explain the association of plural marking with the Dhegiha singular proximate (marked the same as plural in each Dhegiha language). So I'm trying to account for something probably that took place a thousand years or more ago. I'm not suggesting even that the current Dhegiha pattern, where plurality and subject proximity are marked homophonously, is to be accounted for in terms of this sort of comitative focus marker. It was then suggested that various comitative markers might also fit into the *api pattern, and that opha might be one of them. But this is sort of like being related through a long dead ancestor to somebody else. It doesn't necessarily get you to invited to dinner. The family feeling is gone and there's no contemporary pattern of association. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 04:42:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:42:15 -0700 Subject: 2 x o...phA (Re[2]: Historical Explanation for *pi ...) In-Reply-To: <8250093642.20040210214101@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Wablenica wrote: > It looks that there are (were) two "opha" verbs: o'pxa, o'wapxa, > o'uNpxapi, "to join; follow; participate" in Boas&Deloria, and opxA', > owa'pxe, uNko'pxapi, "to go by way of". What's the page number on this? I see that Buechel lists just o'pha (ouNpha=pi) 'go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. He puts a macron over this o, but doesn't write oo as in previous entries (which I assume have rearticulation). The latter might be the best fit for Dh *ophE 'to follow a path/route/trail'. It's possible that the former accounts for the Osage "o-pshe'" and "op'-she" /ophe/ forms in LaFlesche glossed 'ford', bridge', and 'pass from one group to aanother', though, naturally, there is a tendency on at least my part to stretch a point and assume these are all derivations of the same sense. There's also a Dhegiha form *oppe (or *ohpe) 'to go in; to visit'. I think this is cognate with, e.g., IO ugwa' or Wi hokewe'. The source would be something like Proto-MVS *okpe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 05:15:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:15:24 -0700 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer In-Reply-To: <1076458258.40297312b3b91@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > Hey! I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural. I was looking at it without this intermediate step, of course! I think what you're saying here is that the existence of clauses like {no explicit subject} {explicit singular object} verb=PLUR which in OP come out like > ... monzhon thon wethinwin-bi > ... land the sold it- pl > '... the land was sold ...' (Dorsey 678.1) suggests that zero subject + plural verb backgrounding of the subject (and hence foregrounding of the object) can lead to singular object + plural verb implying foregrounding of the object. And, then, as Rory suggests, there is a stage at which singular anything + plural verb indicates foregrounding of the anything, leading to the present state in which plural verbs can indicate foregrounding of a singular object with unmarked subjects or of a singular subject. In the Dhegiha context singularity is reasonably detectable in the morphology, of course, with akha for subjects and dhoN/the/khe for inanimate objects and dhiNkhe/dhiN/thaN/khe for animate objects (depending on the shape logic of the object). For what it's worth, I'm inclined to suspect that the current "object/obviative" articles were the original set, and that the subject or proximate animate pair akha/ama were somehow grafted onto this later, whereas, particularly with this new approach I've suggested, I'm forced to assume that =pi as a proximate marking scheme is older. Assuming I understand the next stage of your logic, I'd have to admit that I'm not sure I see how to pick between this approach and the one I suggested. I definitely like your analysis better than my old "Nude Descending a Staircase" analysis of plural => motion => better subject. That doesn't explain the akha "singular" subjects very well, for a start. I don't know that your approach accounts for the Winnebago use of "plural" marking with first persons as well as with inclusives, but you could argue that that was a development within Winnebago, or that once it was lost elsewhere the environment for your analysis exists. My approach does require a rather peculiar sort of focus marker, for which I don't know of an exact parallel, and peculiar is never a positive factor in an argument. How would you deal with the extension to intransitives? And what about the use of the "comitative" a-plural in motion verbs as part of the proximate marking pattern for motion verbs? These must complicate the process of extending object foregrounding to subject foregrounding. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 05:43:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:43:19 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <002d01c3f0d7$91b99780$b0430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > There's lots of data online about the decay of cellulose acetate film, > though it all mentions that after 1950 NAA filming was done mostly on > poly-something-or-other. The NAA SIRIS catalogue lists the "Tciwere and > Winnebago Folk-lore, including Iowa Cults" as being the first item on the > reel that also contains the slips. Mark has pointed out to me that there is a quality difference between "black background silverbase" and "blue background diazo." The latter has a shorter shelf-life. Could that be the issue? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 05:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:58:37 -0700 Subject: Paper to PDF (on CD-R) Message-ID: Kathy Shea happened to mention that she had discovered (several years ago!) that Kinko's (or some of them) will convert a paper document to a PDF file and make CD-Rs for you. I believe the PDF is just a container for a series of scanned images. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 14:24:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:24:37 -0600 Subject: Paper to PDF (on CD-R) Message-ID: Kinko's did that for my Siouan Stammbaum and map set for the "vegeo-chronology" paper. I didn't have them put on CD's, but they made the .pdf files easily enough. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:58 PM Subject: Paper to PDF (on CD-R) > Kathy Shea happened to mention that she had discovered (several years > ago!) that Kinko's (or some of them) will convert a paper document to a > PDF file and make CD-Rs for you. I believe the PDF is just a container > for a series of scanned images. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 14:22:43 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:22:43 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: > For what it's worth, I'm inclined to suspect that the current > "object/obviative" articles were the original set, and that the subject or > proximate animate pair akha/ama were somehow grafted onto this later, > whereas, particularly with this new approach I've suggested, I'm forced to > assume that =pi as a proximate marking scheme is older. Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a second -(a)pa marker) entirely. There is little doubt that the positionals are the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons. Logically, of course, Quapaw could have been the one to lose the two rather than the other 4 gaining morphemes, but when this sort of loss occurs, it virtually always leaves traces, and I've found none. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 17:57:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:57:37 -0700 Subject: Quapaw Articles (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi) In-Reply-To: <001f01c3f173$c0cf25c0$11b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a > second -(a)pa marker) entirely. There is little doubt that the positionals are > the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons. Logically, of course, Quapaw > could have been the one to lose the two rather than the other 4 gaining > morphemes, but when this sort of loss occurs, it virtually always leaves traces, > and I've found none. I assume the parenthetical remark refers to that =ma collective plural for animate obviatives? This pattern with articles looks like it would be a major isogloss in Dhegiha dialectology. From wablenica at mail.ru Thu Feb 12 18:08:30 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:08:30 +0300 Subject: 2 x o...phA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Koontz, Thursday, February 12, 2004, 7:42:15 AM, you wrote: KJE> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Wablenica wrote: >> It looks that there are (were) two "opha" verbs: o'pxa, o'wapxa, >> o'uNpxapi, "to join; follow; participate" in Boas&Deloria, and opxA', >> owa'pxe, uNko'pxapi, "to go by way of". KJE> What's the page number on this? I see that Buechel lists just o'pha KJE> (ouNpha=pi) 'go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. He puts a KJE> macron over this o, but doesn't write oo as in previous entries (which I KJE> assume have rearticulation). (Boas & Deloria "Dakota Grammar") Page 79. 80. Stems with two initial vowels. ... Locative prefixes are often contracted, either among themselves or with other elements. In these cases the accent is on the first syllable and the verbs are treated like those with uncontracted prefixes. i'phi to be satisfied with food, i'uNphi; ... o'pha he joins, takes part in, o'uNpha(1) ... --------- 1 But opha' to go by way of, uNko'pha. ---------------------------------------------------- Page 32. The following also behave irregularly [as regards ablaut - C.C.] Variable: yu'ta to eat; opha' to go by way of Invariable: ayu'ta to look at; o'pha to take part in, to join a group -- Best regards, Constantine Chmielnicki mailto:wablenica at mail.ru From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 18:35:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:35:30 -0600 Subject: Quapaw Articles (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi) Message-ID: > Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a > second -(a)pa marker) entirely. There is little doubt that the > positionals are the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons. > Logically, of course, Quapaw could have been the one to lose the two > rather than the other 4 gaining morphemes, but when this sort of loss > occurs, it virtually always leaves traces, and I've found none. > I assume the parenthetical remark refers to that =ma collective plural for animate obviatives? Right! This pattern with articles looks like it would be a major isogloss in Dhegiha dialectology. THE major one, I'd guess. Nother paper I should write. Bob From STrechter at csuchico.edu Thu Feb 12 19:14:09 2004 From: STrechter at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:14:09 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: My email has been out for two days or I'd have posted on this earlier. I agree with Ardis' account, and a couple of years ago presented a paper in Santa Barbara WAIL showing the grammaticalization of /pi/ maybe from that verb meaning 'to accompany' into the different paths of a what John Koontz and others are calling a 'proximate' marker, and the plural in MissVS. There are nice transition examples of this in Lakhota texts collected by Deloria where -pi is used on the verb, but the main actor in the sentence is singular. Deloria points out in a note that for instance if a lot of people arrived or came together, then sometimes only the most prominent person would be mentioned. I think that the nominalizer function comes later. Here are Lakhota examples and Deloria's comments. Forgive the enclosure....it captures the font. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Value o2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: The Value o2.doc URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 21:13:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:13:18 -0600 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: Hi Sara, What font are you using for this handout? There are some glitches in my copy and it is displaying in New Times Roman. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Trechter, Sara [mailto:STrechter at csuchico.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:14 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer My email has been out for two days or I'd have posted on this earlier. I agree with Ardis' account, and a couple of years ago presented a paper in Santa Barbara WAIL showing the grammaticalization of /pi/ maybe from that verb meaning 'to accompany' into the different paths of a what John Koontz and others are calling a 'proximate' marker, and the plural in MissVS. There are nice transition examples of this in Lakhota texts collected by Deloria where -pi is used on the verb, but the main actor in the sentence is singular. Deloria points out in a note that for instance if a lot of people arrived or came together, then sometimes only the most prominent person would be mentioned. I think that the nominalizer function comes later. Here are Lakhota examples and Deloria's comments. Forgive the enclosure....it captures the font. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Feb 12 21:37:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:37:10 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: All: I'm co-teaching a seminar in "ergativity" (including a consideration of active/stative languages) this semester. The concept of "syntactic ergativity" refers, among other things, to the fact that in, e.g., some Australian languages, you can't have transitive and intransitive verbs in the same sentence with coreferential subjects without using an antipassive. So "father saw mother and (X) returned" causes problems because 'father' is a transitive subject but the subject of 'returned' is intransitive. So the speaker is forced to make 'see' into an intransitive construction so that the case functions of the subject(s) will match. They manage to do this, but my question relates to Siouan languages. I assume that Siouan languages are not "syntactically sensitive" to the active/stative distinction in sentences with two fully conjugated verbs. In other words, I have been assuming that you can have such sentences as "The boy chased the deer and was very tired." 'Chase' is active (and transitive), while 'be tired' is stative and intransitive. Does anyone know if there are restrictions on this kind of sentence? Since each verb typically has its own pronominal prefixes, I wouldn't expect restrictions. But in my own study of Kaw, I didn't have the presence of mind to check. So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can you have something like: 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) And, then, in the sentence: 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? Bob From shanwest at uvic.ca Thu Feb 12 22:15:29 2004 From: shanwest at uvic.ca (Shannon West) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:15:29 -0800 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can >you have something like: > >1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > >And, then, in the sentence: > >2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > >Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean >"the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it >mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or >would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > >These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? > >Bob > > In Nakoda, my consultant would not allow the object of the first clause to be the subject of the second, regardless of the verb class. So sentences like (2) are never ambiguous to her. The only way you could get that the deer was tired was to put in an emphatic pronoun, a big pause and the consideration that the deer was old information. Even then she didn't overly like the construction. Even sentences like "The man insulted the woman and then (x) sulked" always read that the subject of the first clause was the subject of the second. It helped motivate my argument that there is a VP in Nakoda. Shannon From STrechter at csuchico.edu Thu Feb 12 22:16:20 2004 From: STrechter at csuchico.edu (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:16:20 -0800 Subject: Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer Message-ID: sildoulos IPA 93, for the Lakhota transcription. sara Hi Sara, What font are you using for this handout? There are some glitches in my copy and it is displaying in New Times Roman. Bob From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Feb 12 22:46:40 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:46:40 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No connection. Iskousogos was one question. And 8AB8SKIG8 is another word. And, no, 8AB8SKIG8 and Wabash are not related. Michael On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, David Costa wrote: > Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what > connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and > 'Iskousogos'? > > Dave > > > > > I somehow thought that was "Wabash" (and Algonquian). Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:00 AM > > To: Siouan List > > Subject: Re: Iskousogos > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > >> I was wondering if Marquette's 8ab8skig8 has any Siouan features. I > >> tend to see it as an Algonquian term because of 8AB- 'white', but I > >> notice there's a person on the Siouan listserv who calls himself > >> Wablenica, which, I presume, is Siouan, nicht wahr? > > > > Well, wabouskigou looks pretty Algonquian to me, too. > > > > /waposke/ (OP wamuske) is a pretty widespread form for 'bread'. I think > > it is attested outside of Dhegiha and even outside of Siouan. A final > > -ku can occur in kinterm possessive paradigms in Dakotan, and there are > > various sources in compounds, e.g., ku 'to come back', but I don't think > > that's available here. > > > > Wablenica is wa-ble-nic^a [SOMETHING-...]-lacking or 'orphan', a > > stative-inflected form. I presume it could be called a verb, certainly > > on morphological grounds. I don't know what the root sense of ble is. > > There is a stative verb blec^a 'poor'. > > > > The comparable Omaha-Ponca form for 'orphan' is wahaNdhiNge, analogous > > in form. I'd assume haN was from (i)haN '(his/her) mother', though I > > think I remember someone having a different insight into it. > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 12 23:47:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:47:01 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? I think David Rood and Geraldine Legendre did a paper relevant to this in Dakota, and that this paper has been published. It may be listed at John Boyle's bibliography site (or othewise discovereable on the web). From wablenica at mail.ru Fri Feb 13 04:46:38 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:46:38 +0300 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Dear Professor Rankin: Attached is a sample from Bushotter Texts with watukha(pi) examples. I couldn't found the exact match for your first pattern (S1-stative_verb and A1-active_verb), but the found examples are: 1. wa-ma-tukha tkha "...." echaNmiN na ... was^kaN I was tired but "...." I thought and I acted. 2. tona watukhapi chaNna asnikiyapi naiNsh khohaN tona watukha-akisnipi kiN hena iNs^ehaN lowaNpi when some were tired [stative], they rested [active] or meantime some fatigue-retired [stative] and those instead sang [active]. Friday, February 13, 2004, 12:37:10 AM, you wrote: RRL> 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. --I haven't time to look for these, but afaik some linguist with a Swedish name got PhD at C.U. for "switch-reference" research, according to him, iirc, "...na watukha" would mean "..and boy was tired", and "...cha watukha" would mean ".. dear was tired". Besides, I recall Van Valin elicited a sentence like Wichas^a waN matho waN waNyaNkiN na kte Wichas^a waN matho waN waNyaNka cha kte --with Agens being "wichas^a" and "matho" resp. who killed another one. P.S. An article mentioned by John is: On the interaction of grammar components in Lakhota: Evidence from split intransitivity G.Legendre and David S. Rood Berkeley Linguistic Society 18 (1992) If you wish, I can send you the OCRed text (with several OCR typos) -- Best regards, Constantine Chmielnicki mailto:wablenica at mail.ru -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Watukha.txt URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 13 16:24:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:24:24 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: Yes, I wrote to David off-list just before he left for Vienna and he says he didn't think they went into "syntactic activeness" (if it exists), since each verb comes with its own set of pronominals that help clarify relations. Thanks for the ref though. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:47 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers > here? I think David Rood and Geraldine Legendre did a paper relevant to this in Dakota, and that this paper has been published. It may be listed at John Boyle's bibliography site (or othewise discovereable on the web). From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 13 17:46:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:46:21 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: I think there's some confusion here over what, exactly, we're talking about. That, or I'm dyslexic. My comment was about the river name 8abachkig8, which is found in one or another form on numerous early French maps of the Ohio Valley, sometimes as the name of the Ohio, sometimes distinguished from it. Surely it is "Wabash" -- I certainly haven't any other explanation for it. I was thinking that Iskousogos was supposed to be the most westerly of the names in someones inventory or map -- thus the possible comparisons with Wabash. > No connection. Iskousogos was one question. And 8AB8SKIG8 is another word. > And, no, 8AB8SKIG8 and Wabash are not related. Michael > Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what > connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and > 'Iskousogos'? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 13 19:56:53 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:56:53 -0600 Subject: Active/stative verbs again. Message-ID: My thanks to those who have responded with comment and examples, both on- and off-list. It looks as though there are no constraints on biclausal sentences with coreferential subjects and one active and one stative verb. Disambiguation of such sentences with 3sg. subjects and 3sg. objects, however, presents interesting problems. Shannon's Nakoda speakers require the same subject for both verbs -- the object of the first cannot be the subject of the second without an overt noun apparently. Other dialects may be different: Constantine Chmielnicki reminds me that Van Valin and Richard Lungstrum have separately posited that the use of "conjunctions" or "switch reference" markers, /cha/ and /na/ may be used by Lakota speakers to eliminate confusion. I haven't yet had a chance to look at these sources. I suspect that this may well be true quite generally with the languages that have S/R morphology. These would presumably include Crow, Hidatsa, Mandan and Biloxi. I have Randy's dissertation and MA thesis and will be checking further. I suspect that the same goal would be accomplished using proximate/obviative morphology in Dhegiha dialects. This too is hypothetical at the moment, since a preliminary search of Dorsey's 1890 text collection hasn't yet revealed any applicable instances. No doubt there are some, but my search technique so far is somewhat primitive. The disambiguation problem doesn't seem usually to bear on the active/stative question though. It seems that some more investigation across Siouan would be useful on this/these topics though. Any further data or comments would be most welcome. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Feb 13 22:24:01 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:24:01 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: Bob wrote: > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can > you have something like: > > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > And, then, in the sentence: > > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? I'm not sure this question can even be answered for OP. One of our long-standing frustrations in learning and teaching this language is that they just don't seem to have words that equate to our "and" and "or". Lakhota does, but OP doesn't. To put these sentences into modern Omaha, you'd probably just replace the "and" with a comma. At that point, of course, you just have two separate, short sentences. For what it's worth, I tried testing my Omaha translation of these two sentences with our speakers. Both were accepted. > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) AnoN'hegamaz^i, oNwoN'z^edha. I ran like mad; I'm tired. > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. Nu'z^iNga akha' ta'xti dhix^a', uz^e'dha. Boy the deer chased, he's tired. I asked who was tired in the second sentence, and it seemed obvious to the speakers that it was the boy. When I asked how to say "The boy chased the deer so the deer was tired", the arthritic elder speaker rejected the idea on grounds that "Deers don't get tired. They just go running and jumping all over the place." At this point, Mark drove them away. Maybe I can pick this up with them again later. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 02:48:43 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:48:43 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm not sure this question can even be answered for OP. One of > our long-standing frustrations in learning and teaching this > language is that they just don't seem to have words that equate > to our "and" and "or". Lakhota does, but OP doesn't. To put > these sentences into modern Omaha, you'd probably just replace > the "and" with a comma. At that point, of course, you just have > two separate, short sentences. It is difficult to find conjunction of noun phrases even in the Dorsey texts, though there are a few strategies for doing this. But between clauses I'd guess this would be where egaN comes in. "Having run very fast, the boy is tired." "Having chased the deer, the boy was tired." However, these are Dorsey's learned glosses. I have no idea how you elicit this structure using modern colloquial English. Maybe "having" works, though I'd be surprised. Maybe "and then" or "so" or "because"? Probably this sort of conjunct formation arises most naturally in connected text. > I asked who was tired in the second sentence, and it seemed > obvious to the speakers that it was the boy. When I asked > how to say "The boy chased the deer so the deer was tired", > the arthritic elder speaker rejected the idea on grounds that > "Deers don't get tired. They just go running and jumping all > over the place." This is the kind of problem I experienced with respect to "establishing a plausible environment." Deer do get tired, but not being chased on foot by human beings. Omaha speakers seem not to be very happy with implausible examples. They definitely don't draw a line between ungrammatical and implausible. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 02:46:35 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:46:35 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: Rory wrote: > So the basic conjugation pattern for a typical stative verb > ending in -e seems to work as follows: > > bi'ze 'dry' > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' wabi'za 'they are dry' I beat this into the ground with the speakers on Monday, and it seems the above paradigm needs to be corrected: bi'ze 'dry' oNbi'ze 'I am dry' dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' bi'ze 's/he is dry' (Obv.) bi'za 'they are dry' bi'za 's/he is dry' (Prox.) Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural in stative verbs. I hadn't realized that before. Also, the proximate/obviative distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the statives. We've even found some contextual examples that help make that distinction a little clearer to me. Alberta, as a little girl, is helping her father in the barn. She stoops to lift up a horse harness for him. He is afraid she will hurt herself, and warns her: Udhu'doNba ga!-- Ski'ge! Watch out!-- It's heavy! Here, the father's focus is on his daughter, and the harness is simply a factor she must deal with. But if he were actually discoursing upon the harness itself, he would say: S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga. Horse-harness the it's heavy. The horse harness is heavy. The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. The speakers spontaneously gave me two sentences using the word for 'deep' (s^ku'be): Ni' akha' s^ku'ba. Ma' akha' s^ku'ba. Water the it's deep. Snow the it's deep. The water is deep. The snow is deep. Here, the focus is presumably on the water or the snow, which both take the proximate article akha' as well as proximate marking on the verb. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 03:10:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:10:02 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Rory wrote: > bi'ze 'dry' > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' (Obv.) bi'za 'they are dry' > bi'za 's/he is dry' (Prox.) It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive. I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both? I'd expect the first or last. > Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural > in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural > in stative verbs. I hadn't realized that before. Initially I went down the same path myself. However, there just don't seem to be any examples of wa- as a P3 plural for statives. In short, it's an object only form. > I hadn't realized that before. Also, the proximate/obviative > distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the > statives. ... I'm relieved to hear that, though it might have been nice to have a way of distinguishing stative and "experiencer subject" verbs from each other easily. Great examples of its use, by the way. > The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. The horse harness example also applies. I still don't feel particularly close to understanding the articles ... They remind me of Russian motion verbs. They make perfect sense as each example is explained to me. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 04:33:51 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:33:51 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: John wrote: > Well, certainly not in regard to "proximate" marking and maybe wa plurals > for the third person! Do you or Ardis have a better term for his? It > really is something like conceptual proximacy or nearness or centrality in > some sense, in Ardis's analysus, I think, but it's not really Agonnquian > proximate/obviative marking. Well, I don't know enough Algonquian to find the terms objectionable! I'm still wrestling with the concept itself, though I think I'm getting closer to understanding how it works. "Focus", as distinct from grammatical subject, is perhaps what it is about. If you and Ardis are comfortable with the terms, so am I. > My point then is that experiencer verbs are not statives, though from a > purely morphological point of view, they do mostly have just one patient > inflection and are easily confused with statives, especially when it is > not not always obvious from an English perspective that there is a second > argument, as in the case of 'sick' or 'brave' or 'holy'. [...] Here, I'm going to argue a little. It seems that you are taking verbs from three different grammatical classes, combining them into one which you call "experiencer verbs", and holding them as exclusive of stative verbs. My understanding of "stative verbs" has always been that they are a set of words approximately equivalent to English adjectives, except that they conjugate as verbs, using the object, or patient, pronouns only. This would be a functional/morphological class. By that definition, dhiNge' would be a stative, albeit a bit unusual in intrinsically referencing a non-existent 3rd person object in addition to an optional patient subject. This is just a nuance of the allowed argument list of the verb, much as 'give' differs from 'steal' in English. The fact that some verbs use wa- prefixes and have animate subjects shouldn't disqualify them from being statives. Datives like git?e' on the other hand would be another class entirely. Why can't we have stative verbs as a morpho-syntactic class, have experiencer verbs as a semantic class, and expect that the two classes may partially overlap? > I think wakhe'ga is pretty much along these lines, but the body part that > is the source of the illness is represented by wa-. I doubt you can say > anything like 'I am sick to my stomach' with this verb, along the lines of > *ni'gha ankhe'ga, though I've never asked. [...] > > Anyway, I think that all the rather large class of wa-prefixed "statives" > are probably actually experiencer verbs. Some may allow replacing wa with > a noun, or even supplementing it. I think this argument depends on what we believe that wa- primordially represents. Your view seems to be that it is originally a patient marker. Hence, a verb marked with wa- must have that wa- pointing to a noun somewhere, even if it is hard to tell what that noun could be. The view I posted during the great wa- discussion of a few weeks ago was that wa- was originally a generalizer, and only secondarily and in certain circumstances came to function as the patient marker for 'us' and 'them'. In other circumstances, wa- became a noun head, or continued as a generalizer. I think the wakhe'ga class of verbs exemplifies the generalization function of wa-. These verbs seem to be a class of statives in which the wa- makes the attribute a permanent feature of a person rather than simply a time-neutral condition. Although most of the terms I gave in my basic list of wa- statives probably do not allow decomposition into wa- + stative verb today, it does seem to be the case that wa- can be added fairly freely to many unquestionably stative verbs, and the conjugation follows the expected (stative type) wa- paradigm. Examples the speakers approved included: ski'ge heavy (objective description) oNski'ge I am heavy. dhiski'ge Thou art heavy. waski'ge We are heavy. waski'ge heavy (person is stout) oNwoN'skige I am heavy. wadhi'skige Thou art heavy. wawa'skige We are heavy. My feeling is that prefixed wa- is to statives about what postfixed -s^toN is to active verbs in the sense of indicating characteristic as opposed to specific. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: OP stative verb ablaut? owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 02/08/2004 06:56 PM Please respond to siouan On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks, John. I gather we don't really have the stative verb system > very well worked out yet for OP. Well, certainly not in regard to "proximate" marking and maybe wa plurals for the third person! Do you or Ardis have a better term for his? It really is something like conceptual proximacy or nearness or centrality in some sense, in Ardis's analysus, I think, but it's not really Agonnquian proximate/obviative marking. > The examples you have given are from Dorsey, and all are third person. > The grammar for modern Omaha may have changed a bit, and we're looking > for personal inflections here to build a conjugation paradigm. You may > be right that ablaut may have to do more with proximate-obviative issues > than with plurality; we need to pursue that angle more. I think we definitely need to establish what article sets work with the third person subjects in question. Maybe things work different for animates and inanimates? That's a fairly common Siouan pattern. It might not hurt to do a little context building in the elicitation, too, if that's not happening. I came to the conclusion - after my limited fieldwork, unfortunately - that that might alleviate some of the problems I was having with contexts. People often reacted to my examples by explaining that "people wouldn't say that." This would be a response to something like "I am tall" that seems perfectly natural in English, albeit even non-linguists are probably trained to a fairly high standard of tolerance decontextualization of academic languages like English by the educational system. The problem with "I am tall," by the way, was that it sounded like bragging. An ideal approach to contextualizaiton would be to work from a text offered by the speaker(s), but it might be possible to use arbitary scenarioes. Something like: "My brother got caught in the rain. He was really wet. He came home and dried off. Now he's dry. If he were talking to me he'd say "I'm dry." His friends were with him. Now they're dry." That sort of thing. > Some verbs may apply only to inanimate objects, such as 'shallow' and > 'deep' for water. Unfortunately, that seems to be true of a lot of statives. > Others may apply only to animate beings. Perhaps these are what you are > referring to as 'experiencer verbs'; I'm not sure what all is included > in this class. We've talked about these in the past. I think these are a difficult category to get hold of for Siouanists. I may be totally off track with them myself. They usually do have animate subjects. The subject governs patient or dative patient concord. However, there is a second noun in the frame, a theme I think it is sometimes called, the thing through which or by virtue of which the experiencer experiences the experience (sorry about that). A good example with a plain patient is - I believe - dhiNge' 'to lack, not to have'. The pattern is P1 aNdhiN'ge, P2 dhidhiN'ge, P12 wadhiN'ge, but this is clearly not a stative verb. There is an additonal element, the thing lacked. The thing lacked is the theme - if we can use that word. Is there a better oword? I suspect that in OP this thing lacked has to be a third person - that it would be unnatural or even impossible to lack a first, second, or inclusive person. Some form of periphrasis would be needed to address the concept. I have certainly never seen any examples like 'I don't have you'. A good example with dative patient concord seems to be git?e' 'for one's relative to be dead'. The kinship relation who has died is the theme. The inflectional pattern is P1 iNt?e', P2 dhit?e, P12 wet?e. Again, I don't think I've sen any examples like 'you are dead to me', though these a perhaps a bit more plausible, at least to anyone with with a Western, or at rather, European outlook. I think wakhe'ga is pretty much along these lines, but the body part that is the source of the illness is represented by wa-. I doubt you can say anything like 'I am sick to my stomach' with this verb, along the lines of *ni'gha ankhe'ga, though I've never asked. I think tha for this sort of hting you have to substitute ni(y)e 'to pain one', cf., ni'gha ni'e 'stomach ache'. This is also an experiencer, verb pattern, I believe, though the texts seem to have the experiencer pattern ni'gha i'nie, e.g. ni'gha aNdhaNnie 'my stomach pains me', and I'm not sure what the odds are between i'nie and nie. Anyway, I think that all the rather large class of wa-prefixed "statives" are probably actually experiencer verbs. Some may allow replacing wa with a noun, or even supplementing it. My point then is that experiencer verbs are not statives, though from a purely morphological point of view, they do mostly have just one patient inflection and are easily confused with statives, especially when it is not not always obvious from an English perspective that there is a second argument, as in the case of 'sick' or 'brave' or 'holy'. Nevertheless, I think that that in leaving experiencer verbs out of consideration we are making a serious error and one that will trip us up in various ways. For example, it would be extremely likely that experiencer verbs and statives would take proximate and plural marking in rather different ways. For one thing, there is another noun in the frame, and this might govern the plural/proximate marker or even a wa-prefix. For another, experiencer verbs do seem mostly to take animate "experiencer subjects" and animacy may also be relevant. (Here, in the interest of brevity, I've omitted the part of Rory's letter that lists specific wa-verbs that I suspect are experiencer verbs.) > We have been having a little trouble with the wa- ('us' & 'them') > forms on some of our verbs, as you intimate. Some words, like > toN'ga and s^toN'ga, are accepted readily in all forms including > the wa-. Others seem to be acceptable with wa- only when the > verb is preceeded by some other pronoun like woN'oNgidhe, > woN'oNdoN, or s^e'ama. The words z^iN'ga, s^u'ga, bdhe'ka, gdhe'ze, > gdhe'z^e, da', sagi' and nu'ka seem to fall into this category. > My example of bi'ze now seems to have been particularly ill-chosen, > as one of our speakers now seems to find wabi'ze/a unacceptable > under any circumstance. These all seem to me likely to be stative. The only thing I can think of is that some of the forms with wa- are effectively nominalizations, and the forms like s^e'=ama wabdhe'kka amount to 'these are thin things', whereas wabdhe'kka alone is just 'thing thing', and doens't make a good predication. > Yet another interesting kink is that our speakers sometimes > shift the accent to the last syllable of some multi-syllable > stative verbs normally accented on the first syllable. Mark and > I were told in our session on Friday that this is how one gives > a comparative in Omaha: > > toN'ga - 'he is big' > toNga' - 'he is bigger' > > oNtoN'ga - 'I am big' > oN'toNga' - 'I am bigger' Interesting. It may not be a comparative in the strict sense, but it does seem like some sort of focus-based accentual shift. > If the neutral form ends in -e, this accent shift causes ablaut. > > oNha'hade - 'I am light (weight)' > oN'hahada' - 'I am lighter' > > However, this same mechanism also seems to be used sometimes in > place of the wa- pronoun to indicate plurality: > > gdhe'ze - 'it is striped' > woN'oNgidhe gdheza' - 'they are all striped' > > Anyway, that's where we seem to be at right now. It's quite > probable that I'm are confused on some things. Any further > suggestions or comments on this would be very welcome! I wonder if some of the accented vowels are just long (...a=i > a:). This is one of the contexts where I used to think maybe there was length. It would be interesting to know what the pitch contours over these forms are. I suspect one of the things that trips people up in listening for accent is associating it with length (which is more or less an appropriate cue in English). From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 04:51:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:51:13 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: > It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive. > I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both? I'd expect > the first or last. It definitely can be "you and me"-- that's the way I framed it to the speakers. I put it up to the list as "we two" because I've also been wondering whether it can also mean "me and him". I suspect so, but haven't tried to pin that down with them yet. Rory From napshawin at msn.com Sat Feb 14 11:52:32 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:52:32 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: John, Thats interesting! In Lakxota when we use -wa- to talk about things, its usually plural, because when we talk about a thing we use the name of the thing and use wan. Wa is used for waspanyan a feast (wa-means the many/much different foods) but, agxuyapi wan hel wate. Violet >From: Koontz John E >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: OP stative verb ablaut? >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:10:02 -0700 (MST) > > > Rory wrote: > > bi'ze 'dry' > > > > oNbi'ze 'I am dry' > > > > dhibi'ze 'thou art dry' dhibi'za 'you all are dry' > > > > wabi'ze 'we two are dry' wabi'za 'we all are dry' > > > > bi'ze 's/he is dry' (Obv.) bi'za 'they are dry' > > bi'za 's/he is dry' (Prox.) > >It's interesting to see that the plural can be absent with the inclusive. >I wonder if "we two" is "you and me" or "me and him" or both? I'd expect >the first or last. > > > Interestingly, while wa- is the affixed pronoun for P3 plural > > in active verbs, it does not seem to be so used for P3 plural > > in stative verbs. I hadn't realized that before. > >Initially I went down the same path myself. However, there just don't >seem to be any examples of wa- as a P3 plural for statives. In short, >it's an object only form. > > > I hadn't realized that before. Also, the proximate/obviative > > distinction in 3rd person singular is alive and well marked in the > > statives. ... > >I'm relieved to hear that, though it might have been nice to have a way of >distinguishing stative and "experiencer subject" verbs from each other >easily. Great examples of its use, by the way. > > > The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. > >The horse harness example also applies. I still don't feel particularly >close to understanding the articles ... They remind me of Russian motion >verbs. They make perfect sense as each example is explained to me. > _________________________________________________________________ Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/ From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Feb 14 13:56:05 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:56:05 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DE1@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Sorry for the confusion, Bob. The hydronym <8AB8SKIG8> that Marquette recorded during the Mississippi voyage of 1673, which refers, as Marquette says in the narration of the voyage, to the Ohio River as we know it today, is not related to "Wabash". Unfortunately, the meaning of <8AB8SKIG8 was lost since Marquette died before he could explain it. But when the place name made it back to Quebec/France/civilization, it was tranliterated, incorrectly, to "Ouabouskigou". Historians, at least beginning with Thwaites have thought that Marquette's place name is related to Miami-Illinois /waapaah$iiki/, the name of the Wabash River. However, except for the initial, /waap-/, written 8AB- by the explorer and Ouab-/Wab- in French and English forms of the Miami-Illinois name for the Wabash, these two names are not phonologically related. "You can't get there from here," as they say. Moreover, /waapaah$iiki (siipiiwi)/ 'it-shines-white river' referred to a waterway that brackets today's Wabash River + the distal end of the Ohio River, below the confluence of today's Wabash and Ohio. In other words, the Old Wabash was a tributary of the Mississippi, and the Ohio a tributary of the Old Wabash. So, not only do the two terms not mean the same thing, they describe two different rivers. I hope this clears up the confusion. I'm writing a paper about all this and hope to put this false equation back into Pandora's box. But darn if them cross winds ain't something. Ok. Back to All Things Siouan. Best, Michael On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > I think there's some confusion here over what, exactly, we're talking > about. That, or I'm dyslexic. My comment was about the river name > 8abachkig8, which is found in one or another form on numerous early > French maps of the Ohio Valley, sometimes as the name of the Ohio, > sometimes distinguished from it. Surely it is "Wabash" -- I certainly > haven't any other explanation for it. I was thinking that Iskousogos > was supposed to be the most westerly of the names in someones inventory > or map -- thus the possible comparisons with Wabash. > > > No connection. Iskousogos was one question. And 8AB8SKIG8 is another > word. > > > And, no, 8AB8SKIG8 and Wabash are not related. > > Michael > > > Wabash IS Algonquian, of course, but perhaps I missed something: what > > connection is there supposed to be between '8ab8skig8', 'Wabash' and > > 'Iskousogos'? > > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 15:39:47 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: That's great, Rory -- thanks! I was wondering if both verbs might use -(b)i if the subjects were the same but only one might use -(b)i otherwise, but it's probably not that easy. As for "deers don't get tired", I should have forseen that from my time in the field and made the object of the first clause "his brother". My mistake. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. > Bob wrote: > > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can > > you have something like: > > > > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > > > And, then, in the sentence: > > > > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > > > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > I'm not sure this question can even be answered for OP. One of > our long-standing frustrations in learning and teaching this > language is that they just don't seem to have words that equate > to our "and" and "or". Lakhota does, but OP doesn't. To put > these sentences into modern Omaha, you'd probably just replace > the "and" with a comma. At that point, of course, you just have > two separate, short sentences. > > For what it's worth, I tried testing my Omaha translation of > these two sentences with our speakers. Both were accepted. > > > 1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > AnoN'hegamaz^i, oNwoN'z^edha. > I ran like mad; I'm tired. > > > 2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > Nu'z^iNga akha' ta'xti dhix^a', uz^e'dha. > Boy the deer chased, he's tired. > > I asked who was tired in the second sentence, and it seemed > obvious to the speakers that it was the boy. When I asked > how to say "The boy chased the deer so the deer was tired", > the arthritic elder speaker rejected the idea on grounds that > "Deers don't get tired. They just go running and jumping all > over the place." > > At this point, Mark drove them away. Maybe I can pick this > up with them again later. > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 15:50:22 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:50:22 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: These are all really interesting paradigms (bize 'be dry') and it's nice to have the examples so clearly presented. I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a flexible concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside. It would be interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns. 'Wind, water', and 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may qualify for -akha on that basis. On the other hand, animacy may not be involved at all. This is a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way too. Bob > The akha' is definitely not restricted to animate beings. > The speakers spontaneously gave me two sentences using the > word for 'deep' (s^ku'be): > > Ni' akha' s^ku'ba. Ma' akha' s^ku'ba. > Water the it's deep. Snow the it's deep. > The water is deep. The snow is deep. From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 15:58:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:58:49 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: In a paper on "Time and tense (not!) in Quapaw" I did at the Typology Centre "down under", I used 'having' as the translation, since egaN seems to be the cognate of Dakotan k?uN (as we've said before) and contains the frozen auxiliary 'do, done'. So {VERB-x} egaN, {VERB-y} is 'X done, Y happens/happened'. I've been assuming that it sequences events/states temporally, egaN signalling anteriority. I guess this doesn't really add much to the discussion though. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > It is difficult to find conjunction of noun phrases even in the Dorsey > texts, though there are a few strategies for doing this. But between > clauses I'd guess this would be where egaN comes in. "Having run very > fast, the boy is tired." "Having chased the deer, the boy was tired." > However, these are Dorsey's learned glosses. I have no idea how you > elicit this structure using modern colloquial English. Maybe "having" > works, though I'd be surprised. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 19:22:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:22:52 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Unfortunately, the meaning of <8AB8SKIG8 was lost since Marquette died > before he could explain it. But when the place name made it back > to Quebec/France/civilization, it was tranliterated, incorrectly, to > "Ouabouskigou". Historians, at least beginning with Thwaites have thought > that Marquette's place name is related to Miami-Illinois /waapaah$iiki/, > the name of the Wabash River. And the crosswinds whip up again! Without in any way wishing to quibble with your etymologies, I would be grateful to know why 8ab8skig8 would be incorrectly transliterated ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? Puzzled in Sioux City (metaphorically speaking). From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 14 19:49:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:49:46 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos Message-ID: > Without in any way wishing to quibble with your etymologies, I would be > grateful to know why 8ab8skig8 would be incorrectly transliterated > ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought > that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? The use of <8> for is very old. It predates invention of the Cyrillic alphabet. It was formed with the Greek letters upsilon written on top of o-micron after Greek upsilon fronted and the earlier diphthong [ou] raised to [u]. The Cyrillic use of the letter Y for /u/ is a graphic variant of earlier Greek <8> (with the top open, of course). I don't know how long it's been in use in the West. French, of course, underwent the parallel sound change, with Latin /u:/ fronting to u-umlaut and Latin /o:/ > ou > u afterward. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 21:41:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:41:13 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: <001401c3f333$c5a8c6c0$19b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > The Cyrillic use of the letter Y for /u/ is a graphic variant of earlier > Greek <8> (with the top open, of course). I suppose that makes sense. I'd always assumed it was based on capital upsilon, which is Y-shaped. But probably the miniscules were in use by the time Cyrillic was developed. Actually, psilon is the nominative neuter singular of psilo's 'plain, unornamented, unadorned, prosaic, treeless, without armor', a familiar concatenation of ideas, and upsilon and epsilon are "plain u" and "plain e." I had thought this was in opposition to ou and ei, but when I looked up psilon I also checked the letter articles and it appears that epsilon is plainer than the newfangled eta and upsilon means vocalic u as opposed to w. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Feb 14 22:05:00 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:05:00 -0600 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I had thought this was in > opposition to ou and ei, but when I looked up psilon I also checked the > letter articles and it appears that epsilon is plainer than the newfangled > eta and upsilon means vocalic u as opposed to w. And postclassical Greek pronunciation evolved pretty radically. In modern Greek, e.g., i, ei, E (eta), oi, u (upsilon), ui are [i] e (epsilon), ai are [E] (eh) ou is [u] au is [af], [av] eu is [Ef], [Ev] Eu is [if], [iv] not to mention the consonants. Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Feb 14 23:17:40 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:17:40 -0600 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? Message-ID: I'd like to run my dubious knowledge of the stop series by the comparativists to make sure I'm on the right track phonology-wise on my thesis. Please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong here. MVS had [p], [t] and [k], as well as [h] and glottal stop [?]. [h] could combine with the three oral stops on either side; [?] could immediately follow them (but never precede them?). Thus, we have four series of stops: [p] [t] [k] [hp] [ht] [hk] [ph] [th] [kh] [p?] [t?] [k?] We also have double stop clusters, like [pt] and [kt], which have been reduced to single stops outside of Dakotan. (Do all six possible combinations occur?) In Dhegihan, the stop retained is normally the second of the two; thus [pt] and [kt] both become [tt]. This stop is normally held long, or tense. In Dakotan, the pre-aspirates [hp], [ht] and [hk] merge with the corresponding post-aspirates [ph], [th] and [kh]. (Right for which is pre- and which is post- ?) In OP, the [hp], [ht] and [hk] drop the [h] and have the stop held long and tense: [pp], [tt] and [kk]. In addition, the plain stops [p], [t] and [k] are voiced to help distinguish them from the tense series, becoming [b], [d] and [g]. In OP, the original glottal stop [?] is lost, and [k?] => [?], a new glottal stop set. [t?] and [p?] are retained. Thanks! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 23:30:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:30:27 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <003301c3f313$825ae8f0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > In a paper on "Time and tense (not!) in Quapaw" I did at the Typology > Centre "down under", I used 'having' as the translation, since egaN > seems to be the cognate of Dakotan k?uN (as we've said before) and > contains the frozen auxiliary 'do, done'. So {VERB-x} egaN, {VERB-y} is > 'X done, Y happens/happened'. I've been assuming that it sequences > events/states temporally, egaN signalling anteriority. I guess this > doesn't really add much to the discussion though. I like "having", I just think it might be a little learned or written. In actual speech I'd probably use something else myself. So I'm think it might be difficult to elicit egaN constructionswith "having" examples, htough it might not be. They match up pretty well. I found this example in Dorsey 90:375.1-2: Dhe'=dhiNkhe NudaN'agha uga's^aN hi' e'=de this one N. travelling he has arrived there "but" i'dhiNge t?e gdhi. tired dying he has has arrived back here. The "but" is, I think, essentially a cleft or relative in e with =de 'unexpected' attached to it. So, the whole is something like "This NudaN'agha is someone who managed to reach his goal and has returned all worn out." Maybe are more literal match would be "This N. who reached his goal has returned worn out." (In this case a relieved father is reporting the safe return of his son from a not very successful first war party.) A similar example in Dorsey 91:61.13-14 ma'dhe gdhe'baN naN'ba kki edi s^a'ppe winter ten two when there six s^ethaN' wadhi'tttaN=i e'=de, iN'thaN uz^edha=i so far they have worked "but" now they are tired e=bdh=e'gaN. I think They (are ones who) have managed to hold onto their offices for 26 years and I think they should be ready to move on by now. Unfortunately, in thesese examples, although i'dhiNge 'be tired' looks to be an experiencer verb, it's hard to be sure of the mix of verbs, or they are simply both transitive. Examples with egaN: Dorsey 90:454.19 uwa'z^edha=i e'gaN, nikkas^iNga aN'guxdha=b=az^i=i. w(a)-aNg-uxdha-b(i)-az^i-i we were tired as men we did not overtake them This is clearly we-experiencer, we-active. No gapping, of course. Dorsey 90:455.1 naNppe=awahiN=i e'gaN, uwa'z^edha=i, aN'guxdha=b=az^i we were hungry as we were tired we did not overtake them This is we-stative (or experiencer), we-experiencer, we-transitive. However, it's not clear that the last clauses is not something analogous to a "comma splice." We have Dorsey's assessment of this as a single sentence, but it may not be. We might suspect that uz^e'dha 'be tired, be weary' is an experiencer verb with the hint of the "stative" inflection plus the semantics and that locative u - in what? - but fortunately we have confirmation from these clauses: Dorsey 90:581.2 GaN' waz^iN'ga=ama bdhu'ga=xti a'hiN uz^e'dha=bi egaN', ... and so birds the all very wing they were tired as And as all the birds were wing-weary (or had tired wings), ... Dorsey 90:592.14 Is^ta'ha=khe uz^e'dha=bi egaN', eyelids the they were weary as Dorsey 90:70.5 hi' aNwaN'z^edha agdhiN' ha legs I was tired I sat u-aN-z^edha The next example is a bit different, in that the nominal patient is not a body part. Dorsey 91:61.3 wadhi'ttaN=the aNwaN'z^edha he'ga= m=az^i work the I am tired little I NEG I am rather (or not a little) tired of the work Note that the accompanying nominal patient has the standard inanimate articles when definite, and that the verb does not agree with it, unless we allow for a "zero" 3rd person marking. The experiencer is either zero third person (possibly plural and governing bi) or, in two of the examples, a first person with patient pronominals. We can certainly call verbs like uz^e'dha stative in a purely morphological sense, if we decide we are comfortable with wa- and u- and i- and so on in stative morphologies. But I think that the minute we address the existence of the extra nominal argument (when it is explicit), we have to concede that there is a big difference between this clause pattern and the stative pattern as it is usually conceived. It is true that a distressingly large number of the verbs that are comfortable with non-third person patient subjects turn out not to be stative verbs by this token, and that a lot of the most characteristically "adjectival" statives turn out to be quite uncomfortable with non-third person subjects, but I don't think this means that we really just have one class of verb, "stative" to deal with. Rather, I think it means we have let morphology thoroughly dominate our perception of Siouan verb classes. We might want to think of a verb like uz^e'dha as a transitive verb with an impersonal third person subject, but notice that this impersonal third person subject is fictitious in ways that the body part is not, that the body part takes a non-subject article, and that the body part is apparently governed by the u-locative prefix, which is certainly not typical of either subjects or locatives. As far as these uz^edha clauses seem to have subjects, in fact, it seems to be the patient-concorded "experiencer." I have not offered any test for subjecthood, but notice that when there is an auxiliary verb it agrees with the experiencer: hi' aNw-aN'-z^edha a-gdhiN' legs I was tired' I sat not *hi' aNw-aN'-z^edha gdhiN'=i legs I was tired they-sat (Sit is probably the wrong positional durative for legs, I grant.) wadhi'ttan=the aNw-aN'-z^edha he'ga=m=az^i work I am tired I not a little not *wadhi'ttaN=the aNw-aN'-z^edha he'ga=z^i work I am tired it not a little I don't know if I understand the syntax well enough to claim that that either of these constructions serves to prove that the experiencer s the subject, but I think it is clear that the experiencer is central in ways that the body part or other additional patient is. === There is one interesting issue with naN'ppe=...hiN 'be hungry'. Clearly this is structured as an experiencer, being something along the lines of NOUN=PAT-VERB. But once something incorporates its patient like this, and no external nominal argument is possible (as far as I know), maybe it is a stative, albeit a derived one. That is, the clause syntactic argument is gone. With the wa-statives, like waz^a'z^e, wakhe'ga, etc., it might be argued that the same argument applied, since wa generally precludes a nominal argument, and wa cannot be removed from these verbs. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Feb 14 23:38:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:38:09 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: <002b01c3f312$5409dfc0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a flexible > concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside. It would be > interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns. 'Wind, water', and > 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially > "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may qualify > for -akha on that basis. On the other hand, animacy may not be involved at all. > This is a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way too. But notice also S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga. Horse-harness the it's heavy. The horse harness is heavy. I'll concede that 'horse harness' might be animate, but it seems less likely to be so. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 15 00:30:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:22 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Here, I'm going to argue a little. It seems that you are taking > verbs from three different grammatical classes, combining them > into one which you call "experiencer verbs", and holding them as > exclusive of stative verbs. I assume the three classes are dhiNge' (morphologically a simple root), git?e (gi DAT + root), and the wa-forms (wa-root). I do agree that these are three different morphosyntaxes. And I do agree that they all inflect as statives in the traditional sense of 'one patient a stative makes', modulo the peruliarities of inserting the patient pronominals into these three different morphosyntaxes (aNdhiNge, dhidhiNge, ...; iNt?e, dhit?e, ...; aNwaNkhega, wadhikhega, ...). However, the traditional analysis mixes morphological critria (how many inflections of what kind) and syntactic criteria (each and only each inflectional slot corresponds to one argument, so once you know the inflections of the verb, you know the argument structure of the verb). It's this last assumption that I believe turns out to be too facile, and so, in fact, the morphological statives (the one-patient verbs) turn out to conceal two synctactic classes of verb (the statives - as traditionally assumed - and the experiencer verbs - as we've been discussing them). Note that I'm not sure that all Siouan languages have lots of experiencer verbs. They seem to be pretty common in Mississippi Valley. > My understanding of "stative verbs" has always been that they are a set > of words approximately equivalent to English adjectives, except that > they conjugate as verbs, using the object, or patient, pronouns only. > This would be a functional/morphological class. By that definition, > dhiNge' would be a stative, albeit a bit unusual in intrinsically > referencing a non-existent 3rd person object in addition to an optional > patient subject. Exactly - the traditional morphological definition works, but the syntax doesn't. DhiNge' is approximately equivalent to an English adjective. It's approximately equivalent to an English transitive verb. And git?e is approximately equivalent to something that doens't even exist as a working verb type in English, leading to glosses like 'for one's own to die'. It's true that uz^edha and wakhe'ga are equivalent in some degree to English adjectives, but the first is also equivalent to 'to have (a) tired ...' or 'to be tired in/through/of one's ...'. That's where the syntax breaks down there. As I pointed out in a preceding letter, if an experiencer verb obligatorily incorporates it's patient, either as an incorporated noun or was wa-, it seems to me on further reflection that it becomes a derived stative. The morphosyntax includes an extra patient, but the syntax no longer does. So, on that logic I'd have to concede that naNppe=...hiN 'be hungry' and was^u's^e 'be brave' are, in fact, statives. > This is just a nuance of the allowed argument list of the verb, much as > 'give' differs from 'steal' in English. Pondering this, 'give' is ditransitive (also transitive and intransitive), while 'steal' is transitive (also intransitive) (but does admit some peripheral arguments, too). Maybe 'steal' vs. 'rob' would be a better example of subtile differences? But I'd say that dhiNge vs. ttaNga is actually more like a 'give' vs. 'steal' - a significant difference in the number of arguments admitted. > I think this argument depends on what we believe that wa- primordially > represents. Your view seems to be that it is originally a patient > marker. Yes, and there I'm afraid I still tend to prefer that analysis, though plainly there are two or three different views on wa- among Siouanists. > ..., it does seem to be the case that wa- can be added fairly freely to > many unquestionably stative verbs, and the conjugation follows the > expected (stative type) wa- paradigm. Examples the speakers approved > included: > > ski'ge heavy (objective description) > oNski'ge I am heavy. > dhiski'ge Thou art heavy. > waski'ge We are heavy. > > waski'ge heavy (person is stout) > oNwoN'skige I am heavy. > wadhi'skige Thou art heavy. > wawa'skige We are heavy. This is nice example. I'd argue again that wa- in the second set refers to the body or parts of it. So, both verbs are stative, but the different semantics of the second derive from its experiencer morphosyntax. I'm not too surprised to find a verb (or here, really, just the root) alternating between stative and experiencer with no marking, because this is a common pattern, e.g., English has verbs like 'give' and 'steal' mentioned above that can be used without derivation with different patterns of argument: I gave him a sandwich. (ditrans) I gave suitable gifts. (trans) I gave at the office. (intrans) I stole him a cookie. (ditrans) I stole a cookie. (trans) I stole constantly. (intrans) And there are other patterns, like: It rolled down hill. (intrans) He rolled it down hill. (trans) > My feeling is that prefixed wa- is to statives about what > postfixed -s^toN is to active verbs in the sense of indicating > characteristic as opposed to specific. Dorsey has one case where he glosses this 'chronic'. My kids would love that. However, I am happier with wa- referring chronically, albeit sometimes obscurely, to patients. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Feb 15 00:55:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:55:03 -0700 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > MVS had [p], [t] and [k], as well as [h] and glottal stop [?]. > [h] could combine with the three oral stops on either side; > [?] could immediately follow them (but never precede them?). > Thus, we have four series of stops: > > [p] [t] [k] > [hp] [ht] [hk] > [ph] [th] [kh] > [p?] [t?] [k?] Correct, though there are schools of linguistics that get really fussy about thinking of hC, Ch and C? as combinations. You might flunk out of MIT for saying this wrong at the wrong moment. Fortunately, in many cass it appears that "combine" does explain the historical situation in Siouan. > We also have double stop clusters, like [pt] and [kt], which > have been reduced to single stops outside of Dakotan. (Do all > six possible combinations occur?) Glossing approximate pp OP ppase A1 (< base 'cut by pushing') pt Da pte, OP tte 'bison (cow)' pk Ma pke, OP kke 'turtle' (this one is a bit iffy, see next line) pk OP kkaNbdha A1 (< gaNdha 'want'), but ppaghe A1 (< gaghe 'make') tp Da nakpa, natpa, OP nitta, Wi naaNNc^awa 'external ear' tk Da yatkaN, OP dhattaN 'drink' kp Da kpaza, tpaza, OP ppaze, Wi (ho)kawas 'darkness' kt Da ktA, OP ttE IRREALIS > In Dhegihan, the stop retained is normally the second of the two; thus > [pt] and [kt] both become [tt]. This stop is normally held long, or > tense. T wins if it's present, fore or aft, and this has been argued to be due to metathesis. > In Dakotan, the pre-aspirates [hp], [ht] and [hk] merge with the > corresponding post-aspirates [ph], [th] and [kh]. (Right for which > is pre- and which is post- ?) Da shifts *th to h in initial position in verbs. > In OP, the [hp], [ht] and [hk] drop the [h] and have the stop held long > and tense: [pp], [tt] and [kk]. In addition, the plain stops [p], [t] > and [k] are voiced to help distinguish them from the tense series, > becoming [b], [d] and [g]. Correct. In SC clusters C is essentially unvoiced. In Cdh clusters it is voiced. S = s/s^/x; C = stop. > In OP, the original glottal stop [?] is lost, and [k?] => [?], a > new glottal stop set. [t?] and [p?] are retained. Many *ph become h. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Feb 15 05:55:33 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:55:33 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: >On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: >> I think one difficulty with the forms below is that "animacy" is a flexible >> concept, or, at least, a continuum on which nominals can reside. It would be >> interesting to check with an extensive list of nouns. 'Wind, water', and >> 'snow', although not animate in the western sense, are still potentially >> "actants" in that they can cause damage, move objects, etc., so they may qualify >> for -akha on that basis. On the other hand, animacy may not be involved at all. >> This is a project in which the text collection(s) might show the way too. > > But notice also > > S^oN'ge-we'?iN akha' ski'ga. > Horse-harness the it's heavy. > The horse harness is heavy. > > I'll concede that 'horse harness' might be animate, but it seems less > likely to be so. I tend to agree with John on this, but before we place too much weight on this one, let me clarify that this sentence was mine, not a spontaneous offering from the speakers. My head was still spinning with the epiphany of finally seeming to understand the proximate/obviate distinction; I explained it to Mark; he asked me to explain it to the class; I did so in the presence of the speakers, appealing to them with heavy eye-contact. They agreed heartily with my explanation and my sentence, but they have also been known to accept a student's rendering of aNsni'te for 'I am cold', which they quickly reject in favor of sniaN'te when it is just Mark and me. I *think* the above rendition is valid, but it needs to be tagged with a caveat. The sentences with ma' and ni', and the "Watch out!-- It's heavy!" were volunteered by the speakers without prompting. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 15:06:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:06:44 -0600 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? Message-ID: The only question marks for me are these: > Da shifts *th to h in initial position in verbs. I can't recall at the moment if we had real instances of initial *th in Dakotan. The reconstruction behind the set DAK h-, WINN j- and DHEG th- is *rh- (Allan Taylor's 1970's paper on motion verbs). These, in turn, probably stem from earlier *rV-h-, where the *rV- was probably a deictic or maybe the verb *re: 'go'. But maybe there are initial *th examples too. I'll have to do a search, something that is becoming harder and harder as Windows XP will no longer permit me to access the CSD files with their proper fonts. I have to crank up a Windows 98 machine with the files on it. > Many *ph become h. This is true in Omaha, Ponca and, as I recall, Quapaw, but not in Osage or Kansa. I *think* most of these *ph > h cases are bi-morphemic, i.e., the *p part is a different morpheme historically from the h, which begins the root. I guess the place to check for crucial examples might be the 1st sg. of the verb /hi/ and the noun 'mosquito'. But this probably isn't saying much, as most examples of /ph/ were bi-morphemic. Bob From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 15 15:08:20 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:08:20 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > Unfortunately, the meaning of <8AB8SKIG8 was lost since Marquette died > > before he could explain it. But when the place name made it back > > to Quebec/France/civilization, it was tranliterated, incorrectly, to > > "Ouabouskigou". Historians, at least beginning with Thwaites have thought > > that Marquette's place name is related to Miami-Illinois /waapaah$iiki/, > > the name of the Wabash River. > > And the crosswinds whip up again! > > Without in any way wishing to quibble with your etymologies, I would be > grateful to know why 8ab8skig8 would be incorrectly transliterated > ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought > that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? > > Puzzled in Sioux City (metaphorically speaking). > Dear Puzzled in (sort of) Sioux City: This is a very good question. Through my own digging and delving as well as by tapping Dave Costa's reservoir, it?s clear that the letter 8, which is a circle surmounted by a crescent (very hard to type in e-mail-available fonts...but often written like an eight even by the Jesuits in the 18th century), represents many phonological possibilities in the recording of the Miami-Illinois language, to wit: In word-initial position, this orthographic symbol can represent w-, sometimes oow- before a vowel, and oo- ~ uu- before a consonant. Between vowels, it stands for - w-, sometimes - o(o)w-. Between consonants that are not followed by w and a following vowel it stands for either - o(o)w - ~ - u(u)w-. When it appears between two consonants, the letter represents -o(o)- ~ -u(u)-, and in word-final position, 8 typically represents -o(o) ~ -u(u). (I should add that o(o) and u(u) are the same phoneme in Miami-Illinois). As you know, French has no problem rewriting in standard orthograph any of these phonological values for 8. In French they mostly show up as orthographic ou, sometimes o. The thing is, though, there's a wild card. The Jesuit missionaries in the Illinois, starting from the get-go with Marquette in 1673 and running through Le Boullenger in the 1730s, at least, also used the letter 8 quite freely and indiscriminately to stand for wa(a). It was surely shorthand. If you were a busy Jesuit (and we know they were *very* driven, busy people) you would write < irenans8 > 'bison', for example. Now, you knew very well that your 8 here stood for wa. But for any document created by a Jesuit in the West that made it back to Quebec or France, ambiguity, the bane of linguists (and far more so of historians), raised its ugly head for folks back home. It's clear that they had no idea the priests in the field were giving this phonological value to 8. Each of the three Illinois dictionaries has many examples of 8 representing wa. I've found fifty or so in the Illinois-French dictionary commonly attributed to Jacques Gravier. But we don?t even have to go poking around in musty old dictionaries to find examples. Marquette?s nice, clean holograph map of the Mississippi demonstrates how the letter 8 had a very protean nature. One example is his , his spelling of Ojibwe pooteewaatamii. (Marquette was fluent in Objiwe). As you can see, although the first 8 of his recording predictably stands for oo, the second 8 represents waa. In addition, his <8chage> is Miami-Illlinois waa?aa?i (? = sh), an ethnonym familiar to Siouan listeros. Then, if you look in Marquette?s holograph journal of his second trip to Kaskaskia, you find , which was the name of a highly respected Illinois Indian trader whom the priest met in 1675 while wintering over near present-day Chicago. In this man?s name the first <-8-> stands predictably for -w-, but the final <-8> was intended by Marquette to represent none other than -wa. That said, what we see in the history books, both in French and in English, is ?Chachagwessiou?. However, not only does the final syllable of this spelling not line up with the other spellings of this word on record, which are in agreement, but also the word-final vowel sequence -io, represented here by orthographic <-iou>, does not even exist in Miami- Illinois. Marquette?s is Miami-Illinois ?aah?aakweehsiwa ?copperhead?. As far as Marquette?s <8AB8SKIG8> goes, the Jesuit scholar Camille de Rochemonteix showed that there was at least one priest not working in the Illinois country who was somewhat informed about the letter 8 when he translitereated <8AB8SKIG8> to ?Ouaboukigoa?. Here De Rochemonteix correctly wrote -oa, which in French represents the sound -wa. Perenially Perplexed Pip > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 15 15:14:14 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:14:14 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > ouabouskigou. I thought that 8 was interchangeable with ou? I thought > that the only issue was knowing when it represented w and when u(:)? > I might add that there's one odd-ball use of 8. The letter was used by the Jesuits to write the name "Jesus". You see: . This is completely out in left field, since the u represented here in French Jesus is the high front *rounded* vowel, written a couple of different ways by linguists, but perhaps most recognizably by u-umlaut. Michael From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 15 15:16:28 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:16:28 -0500 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Someone has published on the origin of 8. I can't recall who it was, unfortunately. It is even known what year it arrived in French orthography. I believe it came from Russia, but that part's fuzzy. Michael On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > The Cyrillic use of the letter Y for /u/ is a graphic variant of earlier > > Greek <8> (with the top open, of course). > > I suppose that makes sense. I'd always assumed it was based on capital > upsilon, which is Y-shaped. But probably the miniscules were in use by > the time Cyrillic was developed. Actually, psilon is the nominative > neuter singular of psilo's 'plain, unornamented, unadorned, prosaic, > treeless, without armor', a familiar concatenation of ideas, and upsilon > and epsilon are "plain u" and "plain e." I had thought this was in > opposition to ou and ei, but when I looked up psilon I also checked the > letter articles and it appears that epsilon is plainer than the newfangled > eta and upsilon means vocalic u as opposed to w. > > > From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 15:39:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:39:29 -0600 Subject: OFF TOPIC -- use of 8. Message-ID: I'd call the use of the letter(s) <8> for the u of "Jes8s" an instance of "theography." It goes hand-in-hand with "theophony", the use of a unique phoneme in a dialect or language only in the word for, or name of, the Deity. Examples include the use of a very low, back rounded vowel in the American English word "God" as uttered by some ministers of my acquaintance. Also the existence of the pharyngealized "L" phoneme in Koranic Arabic only in the word "Allah". Bob From are2 at buffalo.edu Sun Feb 15 20:38:05 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:38:05 -0500 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: <002b01c3f312$5409dfc0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I have some notes related to the general theme of late: 1. I have only gotten wa for 3plural subject 'they' of statives a few times & I think these were just errors in my elicitation. 2. The wa of wakHega does not take the place of the thing hurting. WakHega + a body part that hurts maintains the wa. Mrs. Marcella Cayou gave an example of this at the UmoNhoN Language Center which I don't have right now. Upon further elicitation, it was shown that long term illnesses use wakHega (niye 'hurts' is used for short term). The pattern is ___(body part)__ + wakHega(conjugated) So, TethasoNtasi oN-wakHega kidney me-sick 'I have kidney disease.' This supports an analysis of wa- as an activity marker (it removes telicity, end points) which developed from the plural object but is now separate. 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.' But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed which are culturally important. It frequently occurs with 'day,' weather terms (snow, rain etc.), heavenly bodies (sun, moon etc.) Interestingly, these also tend to take adjectives (descriptive words, statives) which are reserved for animates. That is, trees don't take tega 'new' but 'young,' and not 'itoNthadi' 'old-inanimate' but iNsh'age 'old man.' (This is from my dissertation.) The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's because it is so related to horse (animate). I've never seen akHa with something like 'pencil.' It should be noted that the natural phenomenon noted above often have animate-like features, too. The Sun moves, so does wind and snow and rain. Also, these change and effect things, too. So, aside from the cultural context, there are other reasons to mark them as proximate. 4. THe articles should really not be called 'focus' markers. They don't mark the linguistic concept of focus regularly. Often, they are marking given material (topic - not focus, which is new material). Consistently, however, they mark characters (or things, as per 3) which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of conversation. Well, that's all I remember right now. -Ardis From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 21:04:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:04:19 -0600 Subject: 8 again. Message-ID: Makes sense. Whereas in Greek it was an alternative to the digraph, , in Cyrillic the early /u/ used 8 as the norm. The oldest Cyrillic "u"s used something very like <8>, but with the circle in the lower half smaller than the "cup" on top. Ultimately it evolved into the current "y". > Someone has published on the origin of 8. I can't recall who it was, > unfortunately. It is even known what year it arrived in French > orthography. I believe it came from Russia, but that part's fuzzy. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 21:41:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:41:06 -0600 Subject: somewhat off-topic: animacy again. Message-ID: > 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.' > But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed > which are culturally important. The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's because it is so > related to horse (animate). I've never seen akHa with something > like 'pencil.' I experimented with the notions [+human] and/or [+animate] with Spanish speakers in one of my grammar classes. You recall that in Spanish a human direct object requires the preposed accusative marker {a}, usually described as a "preposition". Juan ama a Maria "John loves Mary". I wondered how many different things speakers could consider "animate" for the purposes of this construction. It varied widely with nationality, gender, context, the verb used, etc. Humans all qualified, including titles like 'profesor', 'jefe', proper names, etc. Pets qualified quite generally -- dogs & cats. Childrens dolls, including stuffed animals generally qualified. Farm animals (domesticated) were OK for some, but not as you are eating them -- cows, pigs, horses, etc. For others, farm animals didn't make the grade. Statues generally didn't, although statues of humans were OK. Even something as totally inanimate as a bridge or building made it into the class as long as one was talking about, say, the architect or engineer, who considered it as "his baby" -- that sort of thing. But of course generally such things wouldn't qualify. It was an interesting exercise in linguistic creativity. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun Feb 15 22:11:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:11:10 -0600 Subject: Siouan and other highlighting morphology. Message-ID: I agree with Ardis. Moreover, this seems very often to be a feature of "pronominal argument" languages like Siouan and Muskogean. Since arguments are clarified by prefixes on the verb, the actual nominals in the sentence (which many linguists take *not* to be "arguments" of the verb) strongly tend to have their *own* grammar. And that grammar is most often discourse-based, i.e., its morphology is *not* marking grammatical relations such as "subject" or "object". Rather it is signaling the sort of relationships Ardis is suggesting for what we call "proximate/obviative" in Dhegiha. It may be topicalizing or focusing or simply highlighting, among other things. In Muskogean languages, for example, there are discourse markers (-t and -n) that signal "center-stage" and "off-stage" -- -t highlights what is central. But within Muskogean, Choctaw has additional particles that mark 'topic' (-o$). For years these -t/-n particles were erroniously described as marking 'subject' and 'object/oblique', but then, when identical particles occurred on entire clauses they were described as marking 'switch-reference'. But 'switch-reference' is another misnomer; it's all one system, and it marks central vs. "obviative" in the discourse. The system is free to do this because the essential argument structure is covered by the pronominal prefixes. And I suspect such systems are much more prevalent than linguists have believed (the noun and identical clause markers in Walapai are another case). I really hate to move away from sentence-based grammar and into discourse myself, but if we're going to understand these sub-systems, like article and (-abi) verb suffix use in Dhegiha, it is the direction we have to move. Lead on, Ardis. Bob > 4. THe articles should really not be called 'focus' markers. They > don't mark the linguistic concept of focus regularly. Often, they are > marking given material (topic - not focus, which is new material). > Consistently, however, they mark characters (or things, as per 3) > which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of > conversation. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Feb 16 00:48:58 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:48:58 -0600 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? Message-ID: > 1. I have only gotten wa for 3plural subject 'they' of statives a few > times & I think these were just errors in my elicitation. Good! I'm sure my initial posting of wa- in that position for statives was erroneous elicitation on my part. It looks like wa- is used only for 'us', not for 'them', in stative verbs. > 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.' > But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed > which are culturally important. It frequently occurs with 'day,' > weather terms (snow, rain etc.), heavenly bodies (sun, moon etc.) > Interestingly, these also tend to take adjectives (descriptive words, > statives) which are reserved for animates. That is, trees don't take > tega 'new' but 'young,' z^iN'ga ? > and not 'itoNthadi' 'old-inanimate' but > iNsh'age 'old man.' (This is from my dissertation.) We probably should distinguish plants from planets here. I would expect that plants would take 'old' and 'young' like animals, because they are living things that go through a definite life cycle. But does this principle actually extend to other of the phenomena listed? I don't suppose that 'new moon' translates literally into Omaha, but do animate-type adjectives really apply to planets, rain, snow, ice and so on as 'old' and 'young' apply to plants? > The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's because it is so > related to horse (animate). I've never seen akHa with something > like 'pencil.' Again, caveat lector! The proximate form of the horse harness was my sentence, not the speakers', though they did approve it. Perhaps you can double check this with the speakers in Macy. Meanwhile, I'll check on pencils with the speakers here. > It should be noted that the natural phenomenon noted above often have > animate-like features, too. The Sun moves, so does wind and snow and > rain. Also, these change and effect things, too. So, aside from the > cultural context, there are other reasons to mark them as proximate. Dorsey notes that statements regarding the future of the weather cannot be tta tHe', as that would indicate that that the speaker could control the weather. Rather, they must be tta akHa', in deference to the fact that the weather acts of its own free will. > 4. THe articles should really not be called 'focus' markers. They > don't mark the linguistic concept of focus regularly. Often, they are > marking given material (topic - not focus, which is new material). > Consistently, however, they mark characters (or things, as per 3) > which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of > conversation. Could you elaborate on this for someone who is a bit challenged on the linguistic jargon? In OP we have a series of things that I have been calling positionals: akHa' dhiN kHe ama' tHoN tHe dhiNkHe' dhoN ma ge dhoNkHa' I've understood that the two on the left marked proximate, and all the others marked obviative. Bob recently posted a very interesting item noting the absence of the first two in Quapaw, using the term 'positional' as exclusive of the akHa' and ama'. Now you seem to be using the term 'article' for only the proximate two on the left. Do we still have a term for all of these together? Then what about 'topic' and 'focus'? I've generally understood a topic in Siouan as a noun phrase that the verb comments upon, but that's apparently not what you mean here. I was using 'focus' to mean entities "which are of central concern, centerstage in narratives, topic of conversation". Apparently 'focus' has some other formal meaning. Care to clue me in? Thanks, Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 02:58:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0700 Subject: Iskousogos In-Reply-To: <1076857700.402f8b64797b8@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Michael! That clarifies matters for me, though it must be confusing to work with in practice. I almost wonder if it was wA with a voiceless a, interpreted as a sort of w or u. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 03:52:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:52:48 -0700 Subject: Moon Phases (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I don't suppose that 'new moon' translates literally into Omaha, but do > animate-type adjectives really apply to planets, rain, snow, ice and so > on as 'old' and 'young' apply to plants? I looked in the Dorsey texts and found various expressions that might be relevant. One is miN'=khe t?e 'the moon died, was dead'. In the contexts this seems to mean 'when the moon had waned entirely' because there is an emphasis on it being dark. It is clearly a time of the lunar month, not moonset. Another expression, a time expression, is miN' dhe' he'be 'part of this moon', which seems in the context to mean 'before the end of the (lunar) month'. Another time expression is exemplified by miN' naNba'=the=di=hi=kki 'moon two=the=in=to_arrive_there=when' or 'in two months' or 'after/at the end of two months' (JOD 90:655.3, not translated in the English text!). MiN' dhe' gu=a'dhis^aN=khe=di 'moon this yonder=approaching=the=in' (Dorsey 'moon this beyond in-the') 'after this month'. Dhis^aN figures in idioms expressions for drawing near to or going around. MiN' dhe' s^e'=na 'moon this that=many' (Dorsey 'moon this enough'; s^e'na is idiomatic for 'enough, complete, finished') 'at the end of the month' or perhaps 'at the full of the moon'. In Buechel, I find wit?e 'new moon' (suggesting that the OP expression miN t?e refers to 'at the new moon') and wimima (mimA' 'round, circular') 'full moon'. Also wilec^ala (lec^a'la 'lately, a little while ago') 'crescent moon'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 04:27:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:27:17 -0700 Subject: Regular and Evidential Future (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Dorsey notes that statements regarding the future of the weather > cannot be tta tHe', as that would indicate that that the speaker > could control the weather. Rather, they must be tta akHa', in > deference to the fact that the weather acts of its own free will. Dorsey usually glosses =tta=(i)=the as 'shall surely', while =tta=akha (=tta=ama) using the "animate proximate (subject)" articles are the usual third persons of the irrealis (first person =tta=miNkhe, miNkhe being the first person of the 'animate sitting obviative (subject or object)' article dhiNkhe (in third singular form). The 'shall surely' forms look like the irrealis combined with the "evidential" sense of the inanimate articles. These articles appear at the end of sentences with what I take to be the sense 'evidently, apparently, one can conclude that'. Dorsey just glosses this as past tense, sometimes adding a positional sense, e.g., khe 'the horizontal, the dead' might be glossed as past + 'in a straight line'. The same set of morphemes appear also in the sense of 'when' with subordinate clauses and time demonstratives. Catherine Rudin and Bob Rankin have pointed out to me that the regular future always has the particular set of articles illustrated here: 1s tta=miNkhe 1p (incl) tt(a)=aNgathaN, tt(a)=aNgadhiN 2s tta=(s^)niNkhe 2p tta=(s^)naNkhe 3s tta=akha 3p tta=ama The 1s, 2s, and 3d forms are drawn from the paradigm of dhiNkhe 'the (sitting, animate, obviative)'. The 1p forms are from the paradigm of 'the (standing, animate, obviative)' or 'the (moving, animate, obviative)'. The 3s and 3p forms are the animate obviative articles. These are not precisely singlar and plural. Dorsey makes them singular not moving and singular moving or plural, while Eschenberg (Ardis, of course) has an explanation in terms of already being and entering proximity. Quintero (Carolyn) has noticed some degree of remoteness (less or more) seems to apply to the cognate Osage forms. All of these articles or positionals are also used as obviative or proximate continuative or imperfect auxiliaries, as well as in this future auxiliary paradigm. The use of an auxiliary with the future is peculiar to Dhegiha within Mississippi Valley Siouan, but Crow-Hidatsa uses a future auxiliary without an trace of the *=kt(E) irrealis marker, and I've noticed that most of the forms rather resemble the first, inflected syllable of the MVS 'sit' auxiliary, e.g., Crow has (for the auxiliary ii 'want to, intend to', which I thijk is what's sometiems called 'the future'): 1s b-ii 1p b-ii-lu 2s d-ii 2p d-ii-lu (no third persons) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 04:59:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:59:08 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Could you elaborate on this for someone who is a bit challenged > on the linguistic jargon? In OP we have a series of things that > I have been calling positionals: > > akHa' dhiN kHe > ama' tHoN tHe > dhiNkHe' dhoN > ma ge > dhoNkHa' > > I've understood that the two on the left marked proximate, and > all the others marked obviative. Bob recently posted a very > interesting item noting the absence of the first two in Quapaw, > using the term 'positional' as exclusive of the akHa' and ama'. > Now you seem to be using the term 'article' for only the proximate > two on the left. Do we still have a term for all of these together? I think he meant that only the first set was missing, including ama (apa, aba in Osage, Kaw), but not the ma (pa, ba) in the second set, which iss present (in Osage, Kaw, Quapaw). In OP it is reasonably clear that this second set form is just =ma, but this seems less clear to those studying the more southerly Dhegiha languages, or maybe the initial a- of the first set is less clear or both. Note that in Osage and Kaw the analog of the OP akha article s (a)kxa and the analog of the OP thaN article is txa(N), often kxa(N), while the male declarative form (?) of *=pi is =pa (or =ba) (< =p(i)=a ?), and it requires a certain amount of divine inspiration to make out the various =kxa and =pa (=ba) enclitics of nouns and sentence. It's not clear to what extent the inanimate markes in the third column mark obviative or are independent of the whole obviative/proximate thing. It's not clear if inanimates (marked with column 3, as opposed to column 1) can be subjects. > Then what about 'topic' and 'focus'? I've generally understood > a topic in Siouan as a noun phrase that the verb comments upon, > but that's apparently not what you mean here. I was using 'focus' > to mean entities "which are of central concern, centerstage in > narratives, topic of conversation". Apparently 'focus' has some > other formal meaning. I'm going to shy away from this, except to say that I have myself no doubt been guilty of saying "focus of attention" in a very loose way where topic, or even definite, would be more appropriate and was guiltily aware that Ardis might well be chiding me. I haven't looked yet! The problem is that linguists are now very technical with these terms and their use of focus is only partly in accord with the popular understanding of the term. In popular usage "the topic of the discussion" (the particular subject ewe discussed) and "the focus of the discussion" (what we kept coming back to, or what we were concentrating on) are more or less synonymous, though not precisely. In linguistic usage the topic is the "old information in a clause" ("the dog" in "the dog caught a rat") and the focus is "new information, with attention drawn to it," more or less, e.g., "a rat" in "it was a rat that the dog caught." A collection of clauses can share a topic, but a coherent set can hardly share a focus. I hope somebody who is full touch with current practice will take this up and correct my errors! (Here and earlier.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 05:51:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:51:48 -0700 Subject: OP stative verb ablaut? In-Reply-To: <1076877485.402fd8adb244e@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > 2. The wa of wakHega does not take the place of the thing hurting. > WakHega + a body part that hurts maintains the wa. > Mrs. Marcella Cayou gave an example of this at the UmoNhoN Language > Center which I don't have right now. Upon further elicitation, it was > shown that long term illnesses use wakHega (niye 'hurts' is used for > short term). The pattern is ___(body part)__ + wakHega(conjugated) > > So, > TethasoNtasi oN-wakHega > kidney me-sick > 'I have kidney disease.' > > This supports an analysis of wa- as an activity marker (it removes > telicity, end points) which developed from the plural object but is > now separate. This is particularly interesting. It plumps wakhe'ga back into the syntactic experiencer verb class, but plays hob with my "wa- as patient" arguments, though I belive that they are still essentially correct diachronically. One thing tha has occurred to me is to wonder if perhaps essentially verbs of the stative morphological persuasion might not potentially be able to behave as experiencer verbs. For example, with bize 'be dry', perhaps one can easily say (?) unaN'z^iN aNbi'ze shirt I am dry 'my shirt is dry' The fact that an extra wa- is required in this usage with ski'ge 'heavy' might suggest to the contrary, or maybe the wa- wouldn't be needed in a sentence like (?) niN'de aNski'ge rump I am heavy Or maybe si' 'foot' would work here. I'm trying to think of inalienable heavy things. I might had that my impression that wa- in wakhe'ga 'be sick' refers, at least originally, to the affected organ is founded at least partly on comparative evidence: Os ...huhe'ga (stative) 'sick' Ks ...huhe'ga (stative) 'sick' I think here hu- is 'bone, leg', historically, i.e., 'bone-hega', and that wakhega is wa-k-hega, with a dative prefix, e.g., 'for one's wa- to be hega'. The morphosyntax PAT+N(incorporated)+VERB is unusual. Hu- would have to be non-transparent, or one would expect N(inc)+PAT+VERB. I don't see anything comparable in Quapaw, and I don't know of any sure cognates outside of Dhegiha, though IO has he'ge 'little, a little, not very much', and Dakota has he'kta 'that behind, last (of a time period)'. I suppose the latter is he-k-ta 'toward that', but I'm not sure. The expected Dakotan cognate form would be *(k)hec^a, and, of course, he'c^a is 'thus' < he 'that', but there are no traces of he 'that in Dhegiha. None of these seem strikingly plausible. In particular, nothing with *(k)heka in the fairly direct sense of 'sick, feeble' appears that I am aware of. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 06:55:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:55:11 -0700 Subject: 2 x o...phA In-Reply-To: <13148861686.20040212210830@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Wablenica wrote: > KJE> What's the page number on this? I see that Buechel lists just o'pha > KJE> (ouNpha=pi) 'go with, follow; be present at, take part in'. He puts a > KJE> macron over this o, but doesn't write oo as in previous entries (which I > KJE> assume have rearticulation). > > (Boas & Deloria "Dakota Grammar") > Page 79. > 80. Stems with two initial vowels. > ... > Locative prefixes are often contracted, either among themselves or > with other elements. In these cases the accent is on the first > syllable and the verbs are treated like those with uncontracted > prefixes. > > i'phi to be satisfied with food, i'uNphi; > ... I'd almost wonder if the i'- examples didn't have i= 'mouth', but that doesn't explain the o'- examples. However, it isn't clear what element is being contracted with o- (or i-) here. I think the contraction argument is being offered by analogy with out cases of initial accent. > o'pha he joins, takes part in, o'uNpha(1) > ... > --------- > 1 But opha' to go by way of, uNko'pha. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Page 32. > The following also behave irregularly [as regards ablaut - C.C.] > > Variable: yu'ta to eat; opha' to go by way of > Invariable: ayu'ta to look at; o'pha to take part in, to join a group OP z^u'=he 'ford' OP uhe'=athaN 'steps, bridge' (follow + tread on) OP uhe' 'follow (a creek, a shoreline, outline of camp)' OP (e=d(i))=ui'ha 'follow (group of people)', 'join (a group of people, a race)' -i- < -gi- DATIVE OP ugi'he 'follow one's own's trail' OP udhu'he 'follow (tracks, a trail, a route, a guide)' OP udhu'he 'cradle board' (means for baby to follow one?) Os ops^e' 'a ford' Os o'ps^e 'that which is walked upon: a bridge' Os o'ps^e 'passing from one group to another' Os odho'ps^e 'follow trail of animal' Os odho'ps^e 'cradle board' Ks o'phe 'to wish, to grant or get one's way' (?) Ks niN z^o'phe 'ford, wade' Ks z^aN a'phe ttaNge 'bridge' (wood on-"phe" big) Ks ophe' 'path, trail' Ks ophe' 'follow, as a road or stream' Ks okkiohe 'join as a partner, as in a game (?)' [h] Ks oyo'phe 'row a boat, paddle; oarsmen' Ks oyo'phe 'cradle board' Qu a'niz^o'he 'ford a stream' Qu e'=tti oi'he 'follow, go with, attend' IO n[y]iyu'we 'ford' IO uwe' 'be moving in, travel in, go through, go past, pass along in, go into, follow' IO iro'ware 'follow (a trade, a track)' IO iro'we 'follow (footsteps, a trail) (of a non-relative)' IO igro'were 'follow (trail, tracks), seaching to find someone' (a relative?) I hoha'wa/e 'cradle board' O hoku'wa 'cradle board' It looks like all these general areas, 'ford, wade', 'bridge', 'follow', 'follow by means of', 'join a group', and 'cradle board' can derive froma root *phe in Dhegiha and Ioway-Otoe. I haven't checked Winnebago, but think it's similar. The *phe root is he in OP and Qu, phe in Os and Ks (Os phe being written ps^e), and we in IO. I wonder if the contraction in Dakota o'phe 'join' involves a reflex of the dative -(g)i- in Dhegiha, i.e., o'phe < *oi'phe? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Feb 16 08:34:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:34:15 -0700 Subject: MVS -> OP stop series ? In-Reply-To: <001b01c3f3d5$6cf0cd50$24b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I can't recall at the moment if we had real instances of initial *th in > Dakotan. The reconstruction behind the set DAK h-, WINN j- and DHEG th- > is *rh- (Allan Taylor's 1970's paper on motion verbs). These, in turn, > probably stem from earlier *rV-h-, where the *rV- was probably a deictic > or maybe the verb *re: 'go'. But maybe there are initial *th examples > too. I'll have to do a search, something that is becoming harder and > harder as Windows XP will no longer permit me to access the CSD files > with their proper fonts. I have to crank up a Windows 98 machine with > the files on it. Actually, I'd forgotten, it's not just initially. This is Taylor's *rh, of course, and one or two cases of it may derived from *r(V)-h, as in *thi 'arrive here' and *the/*thaN [vertical positional]. But this is also the set in *thu 'to have intercourse with', *pethaN 'to fold', *phethaN 'crane' (the avian kind), *(wa)the 'skirt', *(o)thiN 'strike', *=thaN 'extent; from', *maNthe 'inside, under'. About the only set I can think of immediately where *th comes out th in Dakotan is *maNtho' 'grizzly'. There's also *(h)i(N)thuN-ka 'mouse', and *othaN 'wear leggings' (not voiced in Winnebago-Chiwere), and so entirely anomalous. > > Many *ph become h. > > This is true in Omaha, Ponca and, as I recall, Quapaw, but not in Osage > or Kansa. I *think* most of these *ph > h cases are bi-morphemic, i.e., > the *p part is a different morpheme historically from the h, which > begins the root. I guess the place to check for crucial examples might > be the 1st sg. of the verb /hi/ and the noun 'mosquito'. But this > probably isn't saying much, as most examples of /ph/ were bi-morphemic. OP phi 'I arrived there' OP nahaNga 'mosquito' OP has *ph in e'giphe 'I said it (to him)', but not ehe' 'I said (the preceding)'. It has ph in aNphaN 'elk'. It has h in the 'follow' set and in u'he 'mortar' (*phe 'to pound'). I had forgotten that Quapaw also has h < *ph as often as not. I assumed Rory was asking only about OP. JEK From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Mon Feb 16 12:45:53 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:45:53 +0000 Subject: on 8 in Jesus Message-ID: Since the French missionaries were literate in Greek, they would have been familiar with the fact that Jesus in Greek is spelt EEsous, with an /ou/ digraph, an maybe that's why the used 8 when writing Jesus' name. For the record, spelings using 8 are found in 17th century Mohawk liturgical materials in which the name of the Christian God is taken from French 'Dieu', suitably palatallised, eg. Ki8. And let's remember tat many languages in which French missionaries in N America workd lacked a phonemic distinction between mid-back amd upper-back oral vowels anyway. (Illinois, for instance.) Anthony From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Feb 16 15:03:37 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:03:37 -0600 Subject: Moon Phases (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > I looked in the Dorsey texts and found various expressions that might be > relevant. One is miN'=khe t?e 'the moon died, was dead'. In the contexts > this seems to mean 'when the moon had waned entirely' because there is an > emphasis on it being dark. Ojibway has giizis nibo 'the luminary (sun/moon) is eclipsed', lit. 'the sun/moon has died/is dead'. There are terms for the new moon based on 'new' and 'stops shining'. (When ambiguity arises, the moon is distinguished as dibik-giizis, 'night luminary'.) Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Feb 16 16:17:57 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:17:57 -0500 Subject: Moon Phases (Re: OP stative verb ablaut?) In-Reply-To: <4030DBC9.9060308@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: In Nahuatl: me:tstli kwa:lo: 'moon is eaten' On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > Koontz John E wrote: > > > I looked in the Dorsey texts and found various expressions that might be > > relevant. One is miN'=khe t?e 'the moon died, was dead'. In the contexts > > this seems to mean 'when the moon had waned entirely' because there is an > > emphasis on it being dark. > > Ojibway has giizis nibo 'the luminary (sun/moon) is eclipsed', lit. 'the > sun/moon has died/is dead'. There are terms for the new moon based on > 'new' and 'stops shining'. (When ambiguity arises, the moon is > distinguished as dibik-giizis, 'night luminary'.) > > Alan > > > From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Mon Feb 16 17:41:15 2004 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert VanValin) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:41:15 -0500 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DDF@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: In my book 'Syntax' with R. LaPolla (CUP, 1997), I have a homework problem in the grammatical relations chapter (pp. 311-13) using data I collected back when I was working on my dissertation. It includes data on the issues you raise. > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? If the conjunction is 'na', then only 'the boy' can be interpreted as the one who is tired; when the conjunction is 'cha', then it's possible to interpret 'the deer' as the one who is tired. The different interpretations seem to be a function of the different conjunctions. Van *********** Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. Professor & Chair Department of Linguistics 609 Baldy Hall University at Buffalo The State University at New York Buffalo, NY 14260 USA Phone: 716-645-2177, ext. 713 Fax: 716-645-3825 VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/vanvalin.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1196 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Feb 16 18:12:46 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:12:46 -0000 Subject: Greeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Following Violet's useful contribution on nape etc I wonder if I could ask what is the Lakota verb 'to greet'. I only know the word napekiciyuzapi meaning 'to shake hands'. Is there another word other than saying 'hau ekiya 'say hallo to', which i have seen used. Can houkiya 'send the voice' have the meaning of 'greet from a distance, send regards' Bruce Date sent: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:01:10 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "CATCHES VIOLET" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: anuNg - nupa > WHILE IT DOESN'T EXPLICTLY SAY THE WORD FOR TWO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD, > ANUNKXA, on both sides, on each side etc, like at the top and bottom, > opposing sides, only two sides, head-tail, right-left, above-below, on > top-on bottom, > so namp anunkxa yuza hypothetically, i went to shake the hand (one) of a > grieving person, and felt really sorry when i saw him/her, i would take > his/her hand in both of mine and slightly rub in to show my sympathy... > Violet > > > naNp?anuNk yuza 'to take hold of something with > both hands'. NaNb is plainly 'hand', and yuza is 'to grab'. AnuNk is > 'on both sides' in several contexts, e.g., anuN'gwakhic^as^ka 'saddle bags', > but, >as such, seems a bit inexplicable. It doesn't seem to involve a > morpheme for 'two'. << > > > > > >I always imagined that _anung(k)_ [anuN'g] was composed of a-nuN-k where > >the center part derived from _nupa_ [nuN'pa] -> nub -> num [nuN], the > >initial part is _a-_ (on, upon) and the _-g/k_ ending might be the > >remaining rest of some truncation process. Hence, 'on/from both sides' (?) > > > >Only recently, I was pondering on _anunkhasan_ [anuN'kh^asaN] > >'Wei?kopfadler' where _anunk_ and _san_ seem pretty obvious, whereas the > >middle part _ha_ [h^a] - to me - is not. Any hints? > > > >Alfred > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up ? fast & reliable Internet access with prime > features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1 > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Feb 17 07:08:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:08:01 -0700 Subject: OP Derivatives of dhiNge 'to lack' Message-ID: I had noticed some examples of OP dhiNge with derivational prefixes that seemed to still have the experiencer subject structure that I thought might be interesting. 1) gi'dhiNge 'to be without one's own' 90:356.19-20 miN'z^iNga wiN e'gaN gi'dhiNga= bi=ama girl a thus they lacked their own PL QUOTE 'in the same way they lost a daughter' It's difficult to tell in the third person, but I assume this form is not transitivized, but remains stative in inflection, and thus an experiencer subject verb in syntax. 2) udhu'dhiNge 'to be insuffficient for one' 90:725.6 u'wa?i= the udhu'dhidhiNge=tta=the what they give you (=rations) the they will surely be insufficient for you 'You are likely to find the rations insufficient' (This is a future of certainly, with the evidential dhaN appended to the irrealis marker =tta instead of the usual auxiliary.) Here the patient form -dhi- for you shows we have an experiencer formation. 3) udhu'kkidhiNge 'to not suffice among a group' 90:735.2 nittaN'ga masa'ni=khe maNz^aN' udhu'dhikkidhiNga=i= dhaN ocean beyond the land it did not suffice for all of you when maz^aN' wiwi'tta=dhaN dhathi land mine the you came here 'As you apparently found Europe insufficient for you, you came here to my land' (Example of evidential dhaN as 'when') OP reflexives are normally active, but here we have -dhi- P2, not dha A2. It's interesting to se that kki- goes not take the form kkig- before dh in dhiNge as it does in the next case, before the instrumental dhi. 4) kkigdhi'dhiNge 'to destroy for oneself by tearing' < underlying dhidhiN'ge 'to destroy by tearing' wathe'=dhaN kkigdhi'dhiNge= xti= aN= bi= ama skirt the she destroyed for herself by tearing very AUX PROX QUOTE It's difficult to tell here, but it looks like the dhi-instrumental transitivizes this form. I also noticed, but am a bit puzzled with: i'dhiNge 'to be tired' Assuming we have an instrumental locative, and not some sort of directional marker, I suppose this is 'lacking by means of'. That sense might underlie the next two. z^e'(=)t[h](=)idhiNge 'to excrete' (z^e' 'excrement') I suppose the structure here has points in common with English 'to void'. z^aN(=)t[h](=)idhiNge 'to be sleepy' (z^aN 'to lie') More or less, 'sleep deprived'. I assume the -t- is the article the 'the (inaimate upright)' here. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 08:16:00 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:16:00 -0000 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <402BFB01.8070007@uvic.ca> Message-ID: I know it doesn't quite answer your question, but even if you do mention the deer in that type of sentence, I think you would often put in is^ or ins^ or ins^ eya following deer as a change of subject na thah^ca ki ins^ eya lila watukha. However Violet and others may be able to confirm or correct this Bruce Date sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:15:29 -0800 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Shannon West To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. > Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > > So, in the language(s) YOU are studying, can > >you have something like: > > > >1. I ran fast and am very tired. (two conjugated verbs) > > > >And, then, in the sentence: > > > >2. The boy chased the deer and (X) was very tired. > > > >Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > >"the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > >mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > >would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > > > >These are things I should know, but I don't. Anyone have answers here? > > > >Bob > > > > > In Nakoda, my consultant would not allow the object of the first clause > to be the subject of the second, regardless of the verb class. So > sentences like (2) are never ambiguous to her. The only way you could > get that the deer was tired was to put in an emphatic pronoun, a big > pause and the consideration that the deer was old information. Even then > she didn't overly like the construction. > > Even sentences like "The man insulted the woman and then (x) sulked" > always read that the subject of the first clause was the subject of the > second. It helped motivate my argument that there is a VP in Nakoda. > > Shannon > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 13:31:02 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:31:02 -0000 Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Could it by Shawnee as in the Dakota Shawani Bruce Date sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:22:37 -0500 (EST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Michael Mccafferty To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Quapaw designation (fwd) > I received this note, and am wondering if anyone has any Siouan light to > offer. > Thanks, Michael > > The M-I term he's referring to is, of course, /akaansa/, i believe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I do Chickasaw topographical nomenclature, among other things, and while > searching for something else I came across the following enigmatic > designation for the Quapaw in Margry's D?couverts... (1: 616): Savansa. > According to the Handbook of NA Indians, this is the sole occurrence of > such a name for them. It bears some resemblance to Miami-Illinois terms > for the Quapaw tribe. Hodge in the earlier Handbook mentions a Quapaw > gens name, Wasa, that could be the last two syllables of Savansa. Do you > see anything that might suggest a possible Miami-Illinois source for > calling the Quapaw Savansa? > > Thanks, as always, > > John > > > > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 16:20:17 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:20:17 -0000 Subject: Off the list question In-Reply-To: <000b01c3eb61$4683be60$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: How interesting. What language is it in? Date sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:55:52 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "Louis Garcia" To: Subject: Re: Off the list question > Hi gang: > I have an 1870 treaty between the Dakota and Ojibway. > The treaty is an inter-tribal one called the Ft. Abercrombie Treaty arranged > by Fr. Genin. > > Who could I contact to have the Ojibway names translated? > LouieG > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Feb 17 16:29:19 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:29:19 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: J. Morse _Rep. to Secy. of War_ (1822) p. 21 gives O-shun-gu-lap as the self-designation of the Winebago Tribe. Is the -p just spurious? Alan From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Tue Feb 17 17:42:07 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:42:07 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Reply Message-ID: The treaty is in English. It is printed in the St. Paul, MN newspaper for August or September1870. I can identify the Spirit Lake and Lake Traverse Dakota leaders. Mark Diedrich (Rochester, MN) say the Ojibway are all from White Earth, MN. Alan Hartley has translated most of the names. Later, LouieG From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 17 18:32:53 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:32:53 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" with its article. I'd guess the -p may well be the same one we have in English "Yep" (for 'yes'), where the -p just represents the definitive closure of the oral cavity. Just a guess though. And, no, I don't think it's a pluralizer. :-) Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:29 AM To: Siouan Subject: Hochank variant J. Morse _Rep. to Secy. of War_ (1822) p. 21 gives O-shun-gu-lap as the self-designation of the Winebago Tribe. Is the -p just spurious? Alan From rankin at ku.edu Tue Feb 17 18:37:02 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:37:02 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: Or "nope" for 'no'. bob -----Original Message----- From: Rankin, Robert L Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:33 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Hochank variant Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" with its article. I'd guess the -p may well be the same one we have in English "Yep" (for 'yes'), where the -p just represents the definitive closure of the oral cavity. Just a guess though. And, no, I don't think it's a pluralizer. :-) Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:29 AM To: Siouan Subject: Hochank variant J. Morse _Rep. to Secy. of War_ (1822) p. 21 gives O-shun-gu-lap as the self-designation of the Winebago Tribe. Is the -p just spurious? Alan From mckay020 at umn.edu Tue Feb 17 19:38:47 2004 From: mckay020 at umn.edu (cantemaza) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:38:47 -0600 Subject: Off the list question Reply In-Reply-To: <002501c3f57e$1c2f9270$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: Louis, The list is also being worked on here too. -Cantemaza de miye Louis Garcia wrote: >The treaty is in English. >It is printed in the St. Paul, MN newspaper for August or September1870. >I can identify the Spirit Lake and Lake Traverse Dakota leaders. >Mark Diedrich (Rochester, MN) say the Ojibway are all from White Earth, MN. >Alan Hartley has translated most of the names. >Later, >LouieG > >. > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 18 07:53:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:53:34 -0700 Subject: Hochank variant In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D012339EB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" > with its article. I believe the first vowel is long, i.e., hooc^aNk ~ hooc^aNg=ra. I'm not sure if there is more than an intrusive schwa between the final k and ra. For example, keec^aN'g=ra 'O (the) Turtle' is written by Lipkind (p. 39, No. 52) with -gra. Some forms do restore e between k and ga, e.g., was^c^iN'k 'rabbit' ~ was^c^iNge'ga 'the Rabbit', but this may be a property of ga. Not all forms do this, e.g., hinUnkc^ek 'son's wife' + ga => hinuNkc^eka 'my son's wife'. From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Wed Feb 18 13:05:55 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:05:55 -0600 Subject: Hochank variant Message-ID: Aloha all, Just an observation: In the three or four occassions that I heard Andy Thunder Cloud address the Nebraska Winnebago folks during powwow or other public venues, I distinctly heard the extended first vowel and the schwa between the final k and ra. However, in each instance, it was the first word in the speech or first in a new section of speech. In other words, it was being emphasized to call or renew the attention of the listener. I do not recall hearing the term within the body of the speech so cannot say if it loses vowel length and the schwa. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology-Geography University of Nebraska Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: RE: Hochank variant > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Interesting form. It pretty clearly represents /Hochangara/, "Hochunk" > > with its article. > > I believe the first vowel is long, i.e., hooc^aNk ~ hooc^aNg=ra. I'm not > sure if there is more than an intrusive schwa between the final k and ra. > For example, keec^aN'g=ra 'O (the) Turtle' is written by Lipkind (p. 39, > No. 52) with -gra. Some forms do restore e between k and ga, e.g., > was^c^iN'k 'rabbit' ~ was^c^iNge'ga 'the Rabbit', but this may be a > property of ga. Not all forms do this, e.g., hinUnkc^ek 'son's wife' + ga > => hinuNkc^eka 'my son's wife'. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Feb 18 15:52:36 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:52:36 -0600 Subject: Hochunk HO Message-ID: As a monosyllabic noun, /ho:/ 'voice, fish' is always long. I don't know its status in the compound. As I recall from Miner, some of these automatically lengthened monosyllables lose their length in larger constructs. Others may not. It's an empirical question. As for the penultimate /a/of Hocangara, I assume "Dorsey's Law" vowels are "real" to speakers, and, according to Lipkind, short, unaccented /a/ is often [schwa] anyway. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Feb 18 17:27:47 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:27:47 EST Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: Re active and stative verbs in biclausal sentences: Crow handles this with the switch reference markers, so there would be no ambiguity. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 18 17:42:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:42:27 -0700 Subject: Hochunk HO In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DE6@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > As a monosyllabic noun, /ho:/ 'voice, fish' is always long. I don't > know its status in the compound. As I recall from Miner, some of these > automatically lengthened monosyllables lose their length in larger > constructs. Others may not. Actually, I had looked it up in Miner, if that helps. > It's an empirical question. As for the penultimate /a/of Hocangara, I > assume "Dorsey's Law" vowels are "real" to speakers, and, according to > Lipkind, short, unaccented /a/ is often [schwa] anyway. Of course, it's an empirical question, too, but I have the impression from various sets of examples I've seen over the years that schwa epenthesis in C=R enclitic boundary contexts like ...k=ra (usually written ...gra, I think) is alive and well and independent of Dorsey's Law epenthesis within stems. Of course, "Hochangara" is pretty well attested in English spellings, I think, but I understood the penultimate a to represent a schwa. I will definitely cede this point to anyone who has evidence demonstrating otherwise! I feel more than a little silly being the person answering Winnebago questions. I think Lipkind backs me up, but Lipkind's vowels are not always easy to interpret. I don't have Susman and in spite of the best efforts of Jimm and Bob the file copy of Miner's grammar that I have looks like it was written in Wingdings. You can get into Word Perfect, but you can't get out. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Feb 18 17:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:58:37 -0700 Subject: Hochunk HO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > As a monosyllabic noun, /ho:/ 'voice, fish' is always long. I don't > > know its status in the compound. As I recall from Miner, some of these > > automatically lengthened monosyllables lose their length in larger > > constructs. Others may not. > > Actually, I had looked it up in Miner, if that helps. One way this could be analyze this is that the historical compound is *ho(o)'=thaNk, cf. OP hu(u)'=ttaNga. which, presumably is a calque or adapted loan, not an inherited cognate, of course. Assuming that initial accented syllable lengthen or are long, and at least other formerly accented initial syllables in Winnebago are regularly seen to be long, this would yield (with length) *hoo'c^haNk and then (accent shift) hooc^aN'k. This would parallel forms with outer instrumentals, boo...' forms, for example. Of course, it is important to realize that this model is pretty much conditioning independent. Perhaps *hoo'thaNk is so accented because long; perhaps it is long because so accented. The best way to determine this is to turn up forms with the same morphosyntax but CV=CV'... accent (CV=CVCV'... in modern Winnebago). There are actually some candidates in OP among the animal + body part compounds. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Feb 18 19:44:14 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:44:14 -0600 Subject: Hochunk HO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote (concerning @-epenthesis): > "Hochangara" is pretty well attested in English spellings With schwa or whatever-- Morse (1822) has O-shun-gu-lap. Schoolcraft (1853-4) has O-chunga-raw and Hochungara. Riggs (Dakota Grammar 1893) has HotcaNgara. Without the vowel (for what they're worth)-- Bowen (Map Brit. Amer. Plantations 1754) has Otchagros. Charlevoix (1761) has Otchagras. Alan From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Feb 20 21:46:55 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:46:55 -0700 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. In-Reply-To: <51E3ABD6-60A7-11D8-BCC5-000A959BEA84@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Van is right about the problem in the book leading to these conclusions, but I've elicited contradictory data. Some speakers insist that the intransitive verb picks up the argument that matches in case with the transtitive verb; "The boy chased the deer and (x) was tired" can only mean "the deer was tired", whereas "The man saw the woman and ran away" can only mean that the man ran away. Other speakers tell me that you simply can't tell from the isolated sentence alone -- the example that was used for testing was "she started the car and shook", and you can't tell whether the driver or the car shook. As far as I know, these are all sentences with "na" as the conjunction; I haven't explored the use of "cha" here. My guess is you're going to get different judgements depending on the degree of dominance of Lak. over English; the first group of speakers I mentioned above were the most fluent I ever had the privilege of working with. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Robert VanValin wrote: > In my book 'Syntax' with R. LaPolla (CUP, 1997), I have a homework > problem in the grammatical relations chapter (pp. 311-13) using data I > collected back when I was working on my dissertation. It includes data > on the issues you raise. > > > Would the sentence, without any noun or pronoun mentioned for X, mean > > "the boy chased the deer and he (the boy) was very tired" OR would it > > mean "The boy chased the deer and he (the deer) was very tired."? Or > > would it simply remain ambiguous? How do speakers treat this? > > If the conjunction is 'na', then only 'the boy' can be interpreted as > the one who is tired; when the conjunction is 'cha', then it's possible > to interpret 'the deer' as the one who is tired. The different > interpretations seem to be a function of the different conjunctions. > > Van > > > *********** > Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. > Professor & Chair > Department of Linguistics > 609 Baldy Hall > University at Buffalo > The State University at New York > Buffalo, NY 14260 USA > Phone: 716-645-2177, ext. 713 > Fax: 716-645-3825 > VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU > http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/vanvalin.html From rankin at ku.edu Sat Feb 21 22:05:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:05:56 -0600 Subject: Active & stative verbs in biclausal sentences. Message-ID: > Van is right about the problem in the book leading to these conclusions, > but I've elicited contradictory data. Some speakers insist that the > intransitive verb picks up the argument that matches in case with the > transtitive verb; "The boy chased the deer and (x) was tired" can only > mean "the deer was tired", whereas "The man saw the woman and ran away" > can only mean that the man ran away. That's certainly how some Australian languages work. And if the two subjects are of different transitivity, one of them has to be changed using an anti-passive in order that the cases match. The difference there, of course, is transitive vs. intransitive but I was interested in seeing if active vs. stative had the same sort of requirement. Apparently for some of David's speakers this was the case. > Other speakers tell me that you > simply can't tell from the isolated sentence alone -- the example that was > used for testing was "she started the car and shook", and you can't tell > whether the driver or the car shook. As far as I know, these are all > sentences with "na" as the conjunction; I haven't explored the use of > "cha" here. My guess is you're going to get different judgements > depending on the degree of dominance of Lak. over English; the first group > of speakers I mentioned above were the most fluent I ever had the > privilege of working with. I hope people will do the necessary research and find out the details. In order to do that, I'd recommend something like "The man chased the boy and X was tired". This avoids problems with degree of animacy and the problem that "deer don't get tired." Really interesting stuff. Bob From warr0120 at umn.edu Wed Feb 25 19:11:22 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:11:22 CST Subject: french grammar Message-ID: Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? It's listed on amazon.fr. Last time I tried I wasn't able to get it through ILL and it's been over a year (at least) since the library at the U of MN ordered it, but it still hasn't shown. I'd really like to see if it's good or not. 318 pages seems like a decent size for a grammar. Is it original work or a translation of something else? Is it accurate? Does anyone know him? Here's what is on the author's personal web page about the book (english translation in parentheses is mine): >>>> > Je parle Sioux/Lakota (I speak Sioux/Lakota) > Published by Editions du Rocher (Nuage Rouge) > "Les Sioux ont du sang fran?ais dans les veines" (The Sioux have French blood in their veins.) > La langue Sioux se compose de trois dialectes : le Dakota, le Lakota et le Nakota. Le Lakota est le plus r?pandu. C'est la deuxi?me langue am?rindienne apr?s le Navajo. (The Sioux language is composed of three dialects: the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota. The Lakota is the most widespread. It's the second american indian language after Navajo.) > L'alphabet Sioux est le m?me que le n?tre. Il ne manque que 6 lettres : d,f,q,r,v et x. Ils utilisent des petits signes suppl?mentaires au-dessus de certaines lettres. Cela change le son. Les phrases sont compos?es ? l'envers. Par exemple, si vous dites:'Chaque jour, cette femme va ? la ville' en lakota, ?a donne : 'Jour chaque, femme la cette ville vers va' (The Sioux alphabet is the same as ours. There are only six letters missing: d,f,q,r,v, and x. They use extra little symbols above certain letters. That changes their sound. Sentences are put together backwards. For example, if you say "every day this woman goes to town" in lakota, you get "day every woman the this town to goes.") > Au d?but c'est une gymnastique qui n'est pas facile ? apprendre. L'avantage du lakota c'est qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup de temps. le pass? est signal? par un petit mot avant le verbe. (At the start this is a trick that's not easy to learn. The advantage of lakota is that there aren't a lot of tenses. The past is marked by a small word before the verb.) > Il faut savoir que tous les Sioux ont du sang fran?ais dans les veines. Tout simplement parce que les Fran?ais qui ont peupl? la Louisiane, ont sympathis? avec les Sioux. Ces derniers les ont bien accueillis parce qu'ils venaient faire du troc. Et non pas leur voler leurs terres. (It must be known that the Sioux have French blood in their veins. It's just because the french that settled Louisiana got along with the Sioux. The latter welcomed them because they came to trade. And not to steal their land.) >>>>> http://www.1212.com/a/batteux/slim.html I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. Thanks in advance, Patrick From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Feb 26 00:41:58 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:41:58 -0700 Subject: french grammar In-Reply-To: <200402251911.i1PJBMZJ013041@firefox.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? Never heard of Batteux or the grammar. But it looks like he's a jazz musician living in France, presumably of Dakota origin. > La langue Sioux se compose de trois dialectes : le Dakota, le Lakota et > le Nakota. Le Lakota est le plus r?pandu. C'est la deuxi?me langue > am?rindienne apr?s le Navajo. > (The Sioux language is composed of three dialects: the Dakota, Lakota, and > Nakota. The Lakota is the most widespread. It's the second american indian > language after Navajo.) I believe the implicit statistics are still correct. The Dakota Dialect Survey actually concluded that the three-way "dln" division over simplified the actual picture and that were more like five major dialects, Santee-Sisseton, Yankton-Yanktonais, Teton, Assiniboine, and Stoney. The first two are "d dialects" and the last two "n dialects," in traditional terms, but all five are about equally different. Well, Stoney is a little moreso, though Allan Taylor has a paper, published in a long ago Siouan Archives Newsletter if I recall correctly, that shows that Stoney in the 1700s was rather more like modern Assiniboine. There's a nice report on the Dakota Dialect Survey in "Sioux, Assiniboine, and Stoney dialects: a classification." Anthropological Linguistics (1992) 34:233-255. So, the main finding of the DDS is that lumping all d-using or n-using dialects together is a bit like lumping all r-less English dialects together. The other way in which the DDS classification differs from the historical depiction of Dakotan dialectology is in classifying Yanktonais with Yankton. Traditionally Yankton is lumped with Santee-Sisseston, and Yanktonais is lumped with Assiniboine and Stoney. I've sometimes wondered if the historical basis for the old approach was just that Yanktonais has -na in the name. David Rood once pointed to a bunch of us that -na(N) is the regular allomorph of the =daN DIMINUTIVE in Santee if the preceding vowel is nasalized. The Teton dialect has invariant =la. I don't recall the forms in Assiniboine or Stoney, but I think they were a bit more complex than just =na(N). However, this fine speculation aside, I think the Yankton vs. Yanktonais distinction is depicted in the sources as traditional, and presumably the Santee speakers who provided the traditional analysis of Dakotan divisions and dialects were well aware of the allomorphy of =daN in Santee. So there must be some other reason for the traditional distinction, perhaps reflecting political factors. > L'alphabet Sioux est le m?me que le n?tre. Il ne manque que 6 lettres : > d,f,q,r,v et x. Ils utilisent des petits signes suppl?mentaires au-dessus > de certaines lettres. Cela change le son. Les phrases sont compos?es ? > l'envers. Par exemple, si vous dites:'Chaque jour, cette femme va ? la > ville' en lakota, ?a donne : 'Jour chaque, femme la cette ville vers va' > > (The Sioux alphabet is the same as ours. There are only six letters > missing: d,f,q,r,v, and x. They use extra little symbols above certain > letters. That changes their sound. Sentences are put together backwards. > For example, if you say "every day this woman goes to town" in lakota, you > get "day every woman the this town to goes.") An alphabet-oriented assessment of a language is usually a sure sign of a certain lack of linguistic sophistication, which might influence other aspects of the treatment. And, if the alphabet lacks d we can probably assume that M. Batteux is a Lakota speaker, though the author speaks of himself as French or English or European - a user of the full basic Latin alphabet. Maybe English, since French uses extra little symbols above certaines lettres, too. On the other hand, the observations on word order are pretty much in line with a certain amount of linguistic introspection. Notice that the distribution of articles changes to accord with Dakotan usage. Omaha speakers I dealt with during field work put it in much the same way, without going as far as examples. They felt that Omaha word order (SOV) was backwards of English (SVO) and vice versa. It's not quite as backward of English as it would be of Irish (VSO), but the characterization is close enough. > I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in > their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. It's a somewhat traditional way of speaking (in English and French) and thinking about a concept like mixed ancestry and French-Indian metis status. Having just thought about paraphrasing this in terms more anthropologically and physiologically sound I can attest that it's not easy to do without sounding like a politically correct weasel. I figure M. Batteux or his editor was writing for the target audience, which does not appear to be linguists. It is my understanding that there is something of a market for Dakota lessons in France. I have known of people - Dakota speakers and linguists, too - who were invited over to conduct lessons on a commercial basis. I don't know if anyone could get rich conducting anthro-tours and offering language lessons to interested Europeans (and (Euro-)Americans and Japanese), but it seems to me that there's a living there for a few Dakota-speakers with the right combination of showmanship and business acumen. I must be a long way from being the first person to think of that, and on reflection I can think of examples going as far back as the late 1800s, and not just Dakotas. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 08:15:53 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:15:53 -0000 Subject: french grammar In-Reply-To: <200402251911.i1PJBMZJ013041@firefox.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: I suppose there are a lot of Lakota surnames which are French in origin. Picotte and Bordeaux spring to mind. Perhaps that is the reasoning Bruce On 25 Feb 2004 at 13:11, Pat Warren wrote: Date sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:11:22 CST Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Pat Warren To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: french grammar > Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? > > I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in > their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. > > Thanks in advance, > Patrick > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 08:12:12 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:12:12 -0000 Subject: french grammar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I haven't read his grammar though I have had email contact with him. He seems a reasonable person and gave me the email address of another person in France interested in Lakotya. Bruce On 25 Feb 2004 at 17:41, Koontz John E wrote: Date sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:41:58 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: Siouan List Subject: Re: french grammar > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > Has anyone ever seen the french lakota grammar by Slim Batteux? > > Never heard of Batteux or the grammar. But it looks like he's a jazz > musician living in France, presumably of Dakota origin. > > > La langue Sioux se compose de trois dialectes : le Dakota, le Lakota et > > le Nakota. Le Lakota est le plus r?pandu. C'est la deuxi?me langue > > am?rindienne apr?s le Navajo. > > (The Sioux language is composed of three dialects: the Dakota, Lakota, and > > Nakota. The Lakota is the most widespread. It's the second american indian > > language after Navajo.) > > I believe the implicit statistics are still correct. The Dakota Dialect > Survey actually concluded that the three-way "dln" division over > simplified the actual picture and that were more like five major dialects, > Santee-Sisseton, Yankton-Yanktonais, Teton, Assiniboine, and Stoney. The > first two are "d dialects" and the last two "n dialects," in traditional > terms, but all five are about equally different. Well, Stoney is a little > moreso, though Allan Taylor has a paper, published in a long ago Siouan > Archives Newsletter if I recall correctly, that shows that Stoney in the > 1700s was rather more like modern Assiniboine. > > There's a nice report on the Dakota Dialect Survey in "Sioux, Assiniboine, > and Stoney dialects: a classification." Anthropological Linguistics > (1992) 34:233-255. > > So, the main finding of the DDS is that lumping all d-using or n-using > dialects together is a bit like lumping all r-less English dialects > together. > > The other way in which the DDS classification differs from the historical > depiction of Dakotan dialectology is in classifying Yanktonais with > Yankton. Traditionally Yankton is lumped with Santee-Sisseston, and > Yanktonais is lumped with Assiniboine and Stoney. I've sometimes wondered > if the historical basis for the old approach was just that Yanktonais has > -na in the name. David Rood once pointed to a bunch of us that -na(N) is > the regular allomorph of the =daN DIMINUTIVE in Santee if the preceding > vowel is nasalized. The Teton dialect has invariant =la. I don't recall > the forms in Assiniboine or Stoney, but I think they were a bit more > complex than just =na(N). However, this fine speculation aside, I think > the Yankton vs. Yanktonais distinction is depicted in the sources as > traditional, and presumably the Santee speakers who provided the > traditional analysis of Dakotan divisions and dialects were well aware of > the allomorphy of =daN in Santee. So there must be some other reason for > the traditional distinction, perhaps reflecting political factors. > > > L'alphabet Sioux est le m?me que le n?tre. Il ne manque que 6 lettres : > > d,f,q,r,v et x. Ils utilisent des petits signes suppl?mentaires au-dessus > > de certaines lettres. Cela change le son. Les phrases sont compos?es ? > > l'envers. Par exemple, si vous dites:'Chaque jour, cette femme va ? la > > ville' en lakota, ?a donne : 'Jour chaque, femme la cette ville vers va' > > > > (The Sioux alphabet is the same as ours. There are only six letters > > missing: d,f,q,r,v, and x. They use extra little symbols above certain > > letters. That changes their sound. Sentences are put together backwards. > > For example, if you say "every day this woman goes to town" in lakota, you > > get "day every woman the this town to goes.") > > An alphabet-oriented assessment of a language is usually a sure sign of a > certain lack of linguistic sophistication, which might influence other > aspects of the treatment. And, if the alphabet lacks d we can probably > assume that M. Batteux is a Lakota speaker, though the author speaks of > himself as French or English or European - a user of the full basic Latin > alphabet. Maybe English, since French uses extra little symbols above > certaines lettres, too. > > On the other hand, the observations on word order are pretty much in line > with a certain amount of linguistic introspection. Notice that the > distribution of articles changes to accord with Dakotan usage. Omaha > speakers I dealt with during field work put it in much the same way, > without going as far as examples. They felt that Omaha word order (SOV) > was backwards of English (SVO) and vice versa. It's not quite as backward > of English as it would be of Irish (VSO), but the characterization is > close enough. > > > I'm also curious about the comment that "The Sioux have French blood in > > their veins". That seems like a very...complex...thing to say. > > It's a somewhat traditional way of speaking (in English and French) and > thinking about a concept like mixed ancestry and French-Indian metis > status. Having just thought about paraphrasing this in terms more > anthropologically and physiologically sound I can attest that it's not > easy to do without sounding like a politically correct weasel. I figure > M. Batteux or his editor was writing for the target audience, which does > not appear to be linguists. > > It is my understanding that there is something of a market for Dakota > lessons in France. I have known of people - Dakota speakers and > linguists, too - who were invited over to conduct lessons on a commercial > basis. I don't know if anyone could get rich conducting anthro-tours and > offering language lessons to interested Europeans (and (Euro-)Americans > and Japanese), but it seems to me that there's a living there for a few > Dakota-speakers with the right combination of showmanship and business > acumen. I must be a long way from being the first person to think of > that, and on reflection I can think of examples going as far back as the > late 1800s, and not just Dakotas. > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 14:04:17 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:04:17 -0500 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). Thank you, Michael McCafferty From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Feb 27 14:52:06 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:52:06 -0600 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's > term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in > the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). I would bet on an Iroquois source. The following is from a treaty with the Senecas in Quebec in 1666 in Docs. Colonial Hist. NY 9.50 (in Eng. translation--no French original): "they paint some red calumets, peace calumets on the tomb." The term is common in French and English docs in DCHNY, usually in Iroquoian contexts. Alan From rankin at ku.edu Fri Feb 27 15:43:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:43:50 -0600 Subject: calumet de paix Message-ID: Haven't seen it in any of the 19th century Kansa or Quapaw documentation. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:52 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: calumet de paix > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan > language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of > "paix" (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace > pipe). I would bet on an Iroquois source. The following is from a treaty with the Senecas in Quebec in 1666 in Docs. Colonial Hist. NY 9.50 (in Eng. translation--no French original): "they paint some red calumets, peace calumets on the tomb." The term is common in French and English docs in DCHNY, usually in Iroquoian contexts. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Feb 27 16:18:50 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:18:50 -0700 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's > term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in > the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). The concept of "peace," itself is perhaps somewhat difficult. I remember looking for this fairly recently. This is a complex collection of associated ideas, the details of which seem to me to depend on a "Western" and Christian context. The cultural dependence is perhaps not as obvious or absolute as something like 'junk mail' and to some extent my difficulties may stem from awkward or literal translations. The 'peace' forms I tracked down in Omaha-Ponca seemed to refer to mental peace, or calm, and although this might certainly be connected with not fearing an attack that didn't seem to be the emphasis. Peace in the sense of an absence of declared war or an agreement not to fight, among other things, seems harder to find a term for. I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in a state of war?') that might be relevant. On the other hand, I believe I have seen references to agreements not to fight being concluded. From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Fri Feb 27 18:03:28 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:03:28 -0800 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John's take on this seems right. The Northern Iroquoian languages have a word ske:no? (both vowels nasalized), or similar forms, which means something like "well-being". It gets applied to good health, the absence of strife, having plenty of food, etc. Nowadays it's sometimes translated "peace", but it has a broader meaning than simply the absence of war. And in fact both peace and war, as we understand them, weren't quite the way the Iroquois understood things in pre-contact times. Obviously there were raiding parties and so on, but European-style warfare was something different. I'm not familiar with a "peace" morpheme occurring in an Iroquoian word for "pipe". Wally --On Friday, February 27, 2004 9:18 AM -0700 Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan >> language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" >> (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). > > The concept of "peace," itself is perhaps somewhat difficult. I remember > looking for this fairly recently. This is a complex collection of > associated ideas, the details of which seem to me to depend on a "Western" > and Christian context. The cultural dependence is perhaps not as obvious > or absolute as something like 'junk mail' and to some extent my > difficulties may stem from awkward or literal translations. The 'peace' > forms I tracked down in Omaha-Ponca seemed to refer to mental peace, or > calm, and although this might certainly be connected with not fearing an > attack that didn't seem to be the emphasis. Peace in the sense of an > absence of declared war or an agreement not to fight, among other things, > seems harder to find a term for. > > I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there > is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a > formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East > Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered > 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There > are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in > a state of war?') that might be relevant. > > On the other hand, I believe I have seen references to agreements not to > fight being concluded. > From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Fri Feb 27 19:04:58 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:04:58 -0600 Subject: calumet de paix Message-ID: The term "peace pipe" is of non-Native origin. For Native communities and in the language, there were no other pipes in use, other than the Sacred Pipes. While the people may speak of using a/ the Pipe, the context was that it is to be used in a sacred manner, on appropriate occassions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mccafferty" To: Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:04 AM Subject: calumet de paix > > > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan language's > term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" (peace) in > the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). > > Thank you, > > Michael McCafferty > > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Feb 27 20:36:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:36:11 -0700 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: <002701c3fd64$a145f7e0$0d430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > The term "peace pipe" is of non-Native origin. For Native communities and > in the language, there were no other pipes in use, other than the Sacred > Pipes. While the people may speak of using a/ the Pipe, the context was > that it is to be used in a sacred manner, on appropriate occassions. Actually, that's a good point. If the Iroquois pipe ceremonies had anything in common with the Siouan ones, the French may have rather misunderstood the whole "peace pipe" thing. The pipe wasn't so much a safeconduct as an implement used in adopting someone, and through that, establishing friendly relations between your clan and theirs. I suppose that these friendly relations might have been transitive to some degree, and that a pipe or set of pipes might have been emblematic of the situation, sort of like adoption papers with official stamps and ribbons. Or perhaps presenting a pipe was simply an offer to perform an adoption. I'm actually pretty vague on the details in the Omaha historical context. (The "pipes" used in this context among the Omaha are actually just ornamented pipe-like objects, not proper pipes, but practices elsewhere might differ considerably in detail.) I think that some archaeologists view ceremonies of this nature as the likely underpinnings of phenomena like the Hopewellian Exchange Network. So perhaps European exploring was perceived as joining or setting up an exchange network. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 22:53:20 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: <2269750.1077876208@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: Oh... sorry. I didn't see your last sentence. "Never mind" -Emily Latella Best, Michael On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > John's take on this seems right. The Northern Iroquoian languages have a > word ske:no? (both vowels nasalized), or similar forms, which means > something like "well-being". It gets applied to good health, the absence of > strife, having plenty of food, etc. Nowadays it's sometimes translated > "peace", but it has a broader meaning than simply the absence of war. And > in fact both peace and war, as we understand them, weren't quite the way > the Iroquois understood things in pre-contact times. Obviously there were > raiding parties and so on, but European-style warfare was something > different. I'm not familiar with a "peace" morpheme occurring in an > Iroquoian word for "pipe". > > Wally > > --On Friday, February 27, 2004 9:18 AM -0700 Koontz John E > wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > >> Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan > >> language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of "paix" > >> (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace pipe). > > > > The concept of "peace," itself is perhaps somewhat difficult. I remember > > looking for this fairly recently. This is a complex collection of > > associated ideas, the details of which seem to me to depend on a "Western" > > and Christian context. The cultural dependence is perhaps not as obvious > > or absolute as something like 'junk mail' and to some extent my > > difficulties may stem from awkward or literal translations. The 'peace' > > forms I tracked down in Omaha-Ponca seemed to refer to mental peace, or > > calm, and although this might certainly be connected with not fearing an > > attack that didn't seem to be the emphasis. Peace in the sense of an > > absence of declared war or an agreement not to fight, among other things, > > seems harder to find a term for. > > > > I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there > > is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a > > formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East > > Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered > > 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There > > are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in > > a state of war?') that might be relevant. > > > > On the other hand, I believe I have seen references to agreements not to > > fight being concluded. > > > > > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Feb 28 13:08:34 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:08:34 -0000 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233A04@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Haven't seen it in, Lakota, but there is the related expression chanli yus^ka 'untie the tobacco bundles' signifying 'to make peace' and later on wicazo yuthanpi 'touching the pen' signifying to make a treaty (with the whites) Bruce On 27 Feb 2004 at 9:43, Rankin, Robert L wrote: Date sent: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:43:50 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "Rankin, Robert L" To: Subject: RE: calumet de paix > Haven't seen it in any of the 19th century Kansa or Quapaw > documentation. > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:52 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: calumet de paix > > > > Does anyone know if a morpheme for "peace" occurs in any Siouan > > language's term for "pipe"? I'm trying to determine the origin of > > "paix" (peace) in the French expression "calumet de paix" (peace > > pipe). > > I would bet on an Iroquois source. The following is from a treaty with > the Senecas in Quebec in 1666 in Docs. Colonial Hist. NY 9.50 (in Eng. > translation--no French original): "they paint some red calumets, peace > calumets on the tomb." The term is common in French and English docs in > DCHNY, usually in Iroquoian contexts. > > Alan > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Feb 28 13:27:45 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:27:45 -0000 Subject: calumet de paix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting about 'war'. I have seen a phrase ob kicis unpi 'they were figting them' meaning they were at war with them. Generally also the phrase thokkiciyapi 'consider eachother enemies ' is heard, but as in many societies 'foreigners' or 'strangers' were generall 'enemies' unless som special arrangement had been made. Or at least that is the picture that emerges from texts such as those of Buechel, Deloria and Bushotter. In arabic too the word qom meaning in one sense 'people' also means 'enemies', or at least among the bedouin that is so. Bruce > I'm not sure there's a countervailing term for 'war' either, though there > is certainly the term nudaN rendered 'go on the warpath' (itself a > formulation growing out of early French and English interactions with East > Coast groups), i.e., 'to conduct a military expedition', which is rendered > 'war' in translated compounds like 'war chief' (or 'war leader'). There > are also, I think, some terms often rendered 'to hate each other' ('be in > a state of war?') that might be relevant.