From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 03:49:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:49:11 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > A question this immediately raises, is whether examples in texts or other > data suggest that the range of uses of wic^ha has been expanding > historically at the expense of wa? Is thi'wic^hakte - as a particular > example of wic^ha use - replacing thi'wakte in nominalizations or > indefinite object cases? If so, we'd probably expect wa in older examples > where today we find wic^ha. A litle checking in the Siouan Archives encodings of the Deloria and Bushotter texts suggests that thi'kte 'murder' and thi'wic^hakte 'murderer; he commits murder' are the forms there. However, I have also found wakte-agli '(ones who) having killed return', apparently referring to men who have returned successfully from a war expedition, and waktoglapi 'they relate their (war) deeds (i.e., their killings)'. These terms are also cited in Buechel, I see, and Buechel lists wakte' 'to kill, to have killed or scalped; to triumph', which seems to be the base term. Perhaps this is a more specialized term than wic^hakte in wic^haktepi 'killing', etc., and so perhaps an older usage. These are far from a complete analysis of wa vs. wic^ha for animate/human (indefinite) patients, and it is rather presumptious of me to try to serialize the examples on the basis of it, but it looks to me like there is at least some potential for wic^ha and wa to alternate in animate/human references, though Regina's and Violet's assessments clearly favor wic^ha as the productive formation. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 04:43:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:43:24 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <20031222231543.67569.qmail@web40003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > The form wawokiya 'to help people with something' in > my previous post, however, remains a grain in the > ointment. My speaker feels that in this case, wa- > indeed expresses the notion of 'people in general'. I wonder if it might not be reasonable to consider wa in this case (and also the waphata 'to butcher' case) as "especially general" or "especially indefinite" animates, perhaps sanctioned by lexicalization at a stage in which wic^ha was primarily inflectional? Do these forms admit use of wic^ha as well, perhaps with some contrast in meaning? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 04:50:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:50:52 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > in the spot, ... Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized for their "indefinite object" form or forms? JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 05:53:39 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:53:39 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: As I start to write my thesis, beginning with an overview of Omaha history, a miscellany of questions has been occurring to me, some relevant and some not. I thought I would post some of these to the list, to find out what is known about them. 1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? 2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ possibly come from something like MVS *mni-s^ot(i)a, if we can preserve the m in *mni and shift the sibilants forward a slot, as happens in IO. Is this a likely etymology, or completely off the mark? 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three different contexts. We have the Maha as the UmaN'haN, or the Omaha tribe, which is said to mean 'upstream'. But we also have the Pani-maha, who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha or Arikara as well. And between the Kansas and Platte rivers, we have a couple of small rivers flowing into the Missouri from southeastern Nebraska called Nemaha, presumably Ni-maha. So are these maha's coming from the Missouria, Osage or Kaws, with the meaning of 'upstream' on the Missouri? The Nemaha is the 'river upstream', the Pani-maha are the 'upstream Pawnees', and the O-maha are the 'ones who dwell in an upstream context'? 4. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Big Sioux River is known to the French as the River of the Mahas, apparently because the Omaha-Ponka were dwelling there in the late 17th century. Tabeau, probably writing around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a "rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says this is probably the Des Moines, but the river seems always to be mentioned in the context of the Minnesota, the James and the Upper Missouri, which suggests the Big Sioux. To Tabeau, the river of the Mahas seems appropriately to be Omaha Creek in northeastern Nebraska, where the Omaha Big Village is located, but this is barely mentioned only in passing. Could mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old (river of the) Maha? In French, it would be pronounced something like /mohaN/, which is at least as close to /umaN'haN/ as is /maha/. 5. How long have the Iowa and Oto been separate tribes? As I understand, the two languages are hardly more than dialects of each other. Some Omaha traditions seem to hold that they were together with both of them, and the Winnebago as well, when they were living on the Big Sioux. When the Omaha moved west to the mouth of the White River on the Missouri, the Iowa and Oto were still with them, though the Winnebago were no longer heard from. After moving back down the Missouri to northeastern Nebraska, the Iowa were still near the Omaha, living at Aowa Creek while the Omaha were at Bow Creek. But the Oto were already living down by Omaha (city) and the lower Platte by 1718 (according to a French map), and joined with the Pawnee in the massacre of the Villasur expedition in 1720. The Iowa moved down to join the Oto on the other side of the Missouri at Council Bluffs sometime prior to 1758, when the French Governor Kerlerec described the tribes of the Missouri. They later moved east to the mouth of the Des Moines between 1765 and 1768 at the invitation of the traders of St. Louis to meet them there. How does this all compare to the Iowa and Oto traditions of their early history? And how about the Winnebago? Is there any reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi prior to 1700? 6. Do we have any language material at all from the Missouria? 7. It looks like we have at least two words for 'horse' in MVS. In the Lower Missouri region, we have /kawa/, from Spanish 'caballo', shared by the Osage, Kaw and I understand the Pawnee. From further up, especially perhaps the northeastern Nebraska region, we have 'horse' derived from the 'dog' term, *s^uN'ka. In Omaha, Ponka, Iowa and Oto, the word completely shifts. In OP, a new word, s^iN'nudoN, is coined for 'dog'. What do Iowa and Oto have for 'dog'? In Lakhota, the new form for 'horse' is the qualified 'dog', s^uN'ka-wakhaN'. Is it the same in all the Dakotan languages? And what is the word for 'horse' in Winnebago? That's enough for tonight. Happy New Year, everyone! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 06:10:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:10:19 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At the moment I'm inclined to see wa prefixes in verbs as indefinite (or, really, non-specific) patients, and in some languages as third person plural object inflections (in OP not 3p subject inflections, even in statives). In nominalizations I think they play the same role(s), and are not subject references unless the subject is encoded as a patient. I'm arguing this in terms of Omaha-Ponca, but I think that similar arguments apply in other Siouan languages, modulo the wa vs. wic^ha complexity in Dakotan. I'll take advantage of Rory's examples to play the devil's advocate, as I think his analysis of wa as the subject marker in nominalizations is essentially different, and requires that wa in nominalizations be regarded as having a different pattern of functioning than wa in unnominalized verbs. Again, I have not yet done any examination of standard grammars to verify this, but I think his approach is not without its advocates. In essence in his analysis wa is the reference to the head of the nominalization, or it might be considered to be just the mark of nominalization, since it doesn't contrast with another marker of nominalization. Rory already draws the necessary distinctions, so I'm just running through his arguments in reverse, so to speak. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John are discussing has > perplexed me too, particularly in parsing names for tools and other > technical terms. In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might > refer to the subject as well as to objects. What I had in mind was this > apparent use of wa- as a nominalizer: > > wa-sabe = 'the one that is black' > wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark' > ... I agree that wa here is a reference to the subject, but also to the patient, as the underlying stems here are stative. > These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if active verbs can be used > in the same way: > > wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals' Here I think the form is essentially 3pInd-(A3)-heals 'he heals them', i.e., that wa refers to the ones healed (indefinite or actually nonspecific third person patients), not to the healer (a specific, if indefinite reference). > And then there is the whole suite of implement terms that are built on > the framework of > > [NOM]-i-VERB > > where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that VERB is enacted by > means of something. Usually, if a noun sits in front: > > NOUN-i-VERB > > then the noun is the object of the verb's action. Rarely, however, it > seems that the noun can be the head of the derived noun phrase, and > implies that the noun is used to perform the verbal action, rather than > that it is the object of the verbal action. I only have one example at > the moment, and it's not as clear as I would like. > > moNzezi-i-gattushi > brass -i- explode > 'the brass thing that is used to explode' > = 'gun cap' > > As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal -i- exists; it might > just be I'd agree that it could be there, "hidden," and missed in transcription. > moNzezi-gattushi > 'exploding brass' Another possibility here is that in this case ga functions to form a stative of the sort invariably formed by the outer instrumental na= 'by heat'. In essence the inner instrumental ga- here is an oblique reference 'with violence' and the (patient) subject is governed by the underlying stem ttus^i. The clause structure is similar to maN'ze na'= z^ide iron with heat red "red hot poker" > Assuming that such constructions do exist, however, > I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i- > nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and > means 'that which is used to enact VERB'. I'd argue that as constructions like NOUN(instrument) i-VERB are admittedly more the norm it would be more likely that wa was standing in for an unspecified instrumental noun, though if nouns in other capacities can occur we might want to admit that wa might also stand in those capacities, too. Whether we might want to allow wa to occur with agents "bronze that causes an explosion" depends on a number of factors, of course - whether this is the same wa that marks indefinite patients or not, and whether we're really convinced that that wa is itself restricted to patients. > In fact, we can find up to three variants of the > same i-VERB nominalization. > > NOUN-i-VERB > moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube > coffee -i- grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > Here, 'coffee' is an object noun. > > i-VERB > i-dhittube > i-grind > 'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder' > > Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-: > > wa-i-VERB > wedhittube > wa-i-grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > But does this last construction mean > > 'thing used to grind (things)' > > or > > '(thing) used to grind things' ? > > My gut feeling favors the first interpretation, and I think our speakers > have also favored that, but it is really hard to find words that clearly > distinguish the matter. My gut feeling is the opposite, of course, though I really haven't presented any general line of evidence in favor of it. However, at a minimum I feel it simplifies matters to have a single wa behaving in a consistent way in several different contexts, rather than one indefinite patient wa and one nominalization/head-marking wa, with overlapping but different patterns of agreement. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 09:41:17 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 01:41:17 -0800 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: > As I start to write my thesis, beginning with an overview > of Omaha history, a miscellany of questions has been > occurring to me, some relevant and some not. I thought > I would post some of these to the list, to find out what > is known about them. > > 1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River > is Pekitanoui. Does anyone know where that comes > from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy River'; compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', and pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy 'muddy river, Missouri river'. > 2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ > possibly come from something like MVS > *mni-s^ot(i)a, if we can preserve the m in *mni > and shift the sibilants forward a slot, as happens > in IO. Is this a likely etymology, or completely > off the mark? The latter, I fear. It's actually from Illinois /mihsoori/ 'canoe'. Michael McCafferty just wrote an article about this name, so I'll let him elaborate. best, David Costa From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 16:26:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:26:04 -0600 Subject: animate wa- Message-ID: Until I saw John's research from Bushotter, et al., below, I was going to suggest that Violet's and Regina's examples militated strongly against the 'valence reducer' analysis of WA- and in favor of the more traditional animate/inanimate, definite/indefinite analysis. But it seems that wa + kte *does* have a reading that is different from wicha + kte, and it seems to be the intransitive meaning one would predict. So I guess I'm back to wondering about the distribution of wicha- and wa- in the context of a verb that virtually requires an animate object (if there is an object at all) like -kta/-kte. What it is starting to look like to (an amateur Dakotanist like) me, is that wicha- is indeed spreading at the expense of wa- in strictly verbal constructions. But wa- is found in the nominalized forms. (Of course we can still debate whether these two WA's are the same or different morphemes.) Bob > However, I have also found wakte-agli '(ones who) having killed return', > apparently referring to men who have returned successfully from a war > expedition, and waktoglapi 'they relate their (war) deeds (i.e., their > killings)'. These terms are also cited in Buechel, I see, and Buechel > lists wakte' 'to kill, to have killed or scalped; to triumph', which seems > to be the base term. Perhaps this is a more specialized term than > wic^hakte in wic^haktepi 'killing', etc., and so perhaps an older usage. > > These are far from a complete analysis of wa vs. wic^ha for animate/human > (indefinite) patients, and it is rather presumptious of me to try to > serialize the examples on the basis of it, but it looks to me like there > is at least some potential for wic^ha and wa to alternate in animate/human > references, though Regina's and Violet's assessments clearly favor wic^ha > as the productive formation. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 16:39:52 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:39:52 -0600 Subject: animate wa- Message-ID: What I was trying to suggest here that probably didn't come through in what I actually wrote is that WICHA is now "productive" with animate verbs like 'kill' and WA is non-productive and fossilized in the derived nominals. Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear. Bob > What > it is starting to look like to (an amateur Dakotanist like) me, is that wicha- > is indeed spreading at the expense of wa- in strictly verbal constructions. But > wa- is found in the nominalized forms. (Of course we can still debate whether > these two WA's are the same or different morphemes.) From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 17:03:37 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:03:37 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: And how about the Winnebago? Is there any > reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi > prior to 1700? Most of the contact information on the Hocank has them as being in central and southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. I'm not aware of any sources that site them West of the Mississippi, but this does not mean they did not have groups which had migrated there. Archeological data also seems to indicate that the Hocank were located East of the Mississippi for a substantial period prior to contact. Again, this does not preclude the possibility of small groups or bands migrating west. And what is the word for 'horse' > in Winnebago? s^uNuNk-xate is the word for horse in Hocank. Literally "Big Dog". Henning _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work � and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 17:06:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:06:41 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <029401c3d085$f3ddc110$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What I was trying to suggest here that probably didn't come through in > what I actually wrote is that WICHA is now "productive" with animate > verbs like 'kill' and WA is non-productive and fossilized in the derived > nominals. Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear. Bob That pretty well sums up my feelings, but with the caveat that wic^ha looks like it has been productive since at least the middle 1800s with kte. I picked out kte as a sample stem for simplicity's sake; things might look different with a wider variety of verbs. It looks like wa is not productive in animate references today, but it seems reasonable to suppose that there may have been a time when both wic^ha and wa were productive, with some difference in meaning, or some difference in social or geographic distribution. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 17:57:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:57:21 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: > 2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ > possibly come from The late Don Lance had a paper on the name Missouri (he taught at MU in Columbia). I don't know if he published it before his death last year or not. You might try Googling his name and see if you can come up with it or check NAMES, the journal of the American Name Society. > 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three > different contexts. We have the Maha as the > UmaN'haN, or the Omaha tribe, which is said to > mean 'upstream'. But we also have the Pani-maha, > who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems > sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha > or Arikara as well. And between the Kansas and > Platte rivers, we have a couple of small rivers > flowing into the Missouri from southeastern > Nebraska called Nemaha, presumably Ni-maha. > So are these maha's coming from the Missouria, > Osage or Kaws, with the meaning of 'upstream' > on the Missouri? The Nemaha is the 'river upstream', > the Pani-maha are the 'upstream Pawnees', and the > O-maha are the 'ones who dwell in an upstream context'? There's consensus among archaeologists (and, I suspect, linguists) that the migration of the Caddoan-speaking peoples was from South to North. For what it's worth. But I think there is more than one MAHA. While the names Omaha and (Quapaw) Imaha do appear to refer to 'upstream', I think Nemaha is from Chiwere ni 'water' and maha 'muddy' (another 'muddy river' name). Jimm can confirm this or not. Maha may also have a reading in Caddoan languages -- I simply don't know that. > 4. Tabeau, probably writing > around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a > "rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says > this is probably the Des Moines, . . . Could > mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old > (river of the) Maha? In French, it would be > pronounced something like /mohaN/, which is at least > as close to /umaN'haN/ as is /maha/. I can't say what's possible, but if it's Des Moines it's not likely from maha. The etymology of Des Moines has long been disuputed, but the best bet is from the new dictionary of Native American placenames that Bill Bright is editing (with the questionable help of several of us on the list). In the Des Moines entry Dave Costa relates it to the French shortening of the Algonquian tribal name /Moyiinkweena/, a derogatory term used by the Peorias meaning "visage plein d'ordure" (shit-faces). > 5. How long have the Iowa and Oto been separate tribes? > As I understand, the two languages are hardly more > than dialects of each other. These are vexed questions that are often not helped much by native accounts that strongly tend to collapse long periods of time into an account that will make sense to the layman. Spanish, Gallego (Galician) and Portuguese are linguistically quite close, but they have about a 1500 year internal time depth. All I can offer is that guesstimates of linguistic time depth have most often erred on the shallow side. > 6. Do we have any language material at all from the > Missouria? Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. > 7. It looks like we have at least two words for 'horse' > in MVS. The $oNge term seems to have been generalized (or transfered) to 'horse' pretty much all over, including Osage and Kaw. These latter do also have OS kkawa and KS kkawaye from Spanish. The poor dog then usually gets the innovated (derived) term: $oNge oyudaN 'canid + pull, drag' > $oNgiidaN 'dog' in Kansa. All this comes from the fact that dogs were used to pull travois. Miner lists /$uuNk/ 'dog, horse' for WI. And there are Hocangara words for 'saddle', etc. derived from it. The folks in Mauston, Wisc. can elaborate on that better than I. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 18:00:30 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:00:30 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Thanks, David! That's a big help! Is there a reference or anything for Michael's article? As a follow-up for question 2, if the name of the Missouri River comes from an Illinois word for 'canoe', and the Missouria tribe is so-called either for the river they live on or for a reputation about their canoes, then what did the Missouria call themselves? What did their Siouan neighbors (Osage, Kaw, Quapaw, Oto and Iowa) call them? The Omaha word for the Missouria given in Fletcher and La Flesche is Niu'tachi, which they translate as "those who came floating down dead". ni - 'water' u- 'in' t?e - 'dead', 'die' ni-u'-t?e - 'die in water', 'drown' I don't recognize /(a)chi/, but I gather that that's the 'came floating down' part. Perhaps 'grandmother speech' for athi', 'have arrived here' ? Best, Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 18:55:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:55:49 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a lexicography list for those woking on dictionaries. If you are interested but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo registration process, I expect. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 18:57:03 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:57:03 -0800 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? Dave > Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a > lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you are interested > but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then > to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo > registration process, I expect. > Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 19:07:43 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:07:43 -0800 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: > Thanks, David! That's a big help! Is there a reference or anything for > Michael's article? Well, Michael himself might want to provide this, but he could be offline due to the holidays, so it is: Michael McCafferty. 2003. 'On the Birthday and Etymology of the Placename Missouri'. Names 51.2 (June 2003): 31-45. Michael discusses this name in much more historical detail in his article, but the general connection between 'Missouri' and /mihsoori/ has been recognized for quite some time. It's mentioned on page 461 of HNAI volume 13, but it was known way before that as well. I have no idea who might have mentioned it in print first. Maybe Michael would know? David From boris at terracom.net Thu Jan 1 19:17:50 2004 From: boris at terracom.net (Al Knutson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:17:50 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Other than forgetting my Yahoo password, my registration went through directly. Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of David Costa Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:57 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: lexicography list. I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? Dave > Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a > lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you are interested > but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then > to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo > registration process, I expect. > Bob From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 1 19:56:04 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:56:04 -0600 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Michael's absence, here's what I have for Missouri(a): < French Missouris (pl.; 1687) < Fr. 8emess8rit (1673; the character 8 is used in French transcriptions of North American languages to represent the sounds spelled ou in French) < Illinois we:mihso:rit ‘person who has a big canoe’ < we:- (3d pers. sg. prefix o- in the changed mode of the conjunct order) + mihso:ri ‘big canoe’ (as missouri 1725, Internat. J. Amer. Ling. LVII. (1991) 374) + -t (3d pers. sg. conjunct suffix); < mihs- ‘big’ + -o:ri ‘canoe’ (< PA *o:si). Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal stop; unvoiced th] ‘big’ or *mehT- ‘wooden’ which have identical reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss ‘wooden canoe’ is made less likely by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia ‘Frenchman’ (lit. ‘wooden-boat person’). Happy New Year, Alan From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Thu Jan 1 20:06:39 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:06:39 -0800 Subject: lexicography list. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've been a little wary of this. Does signing up with Yahoo mean an increase in spam? Otherwise the list seems like a fine idea. Wally > I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical > problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? > > Dave > > >> Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has >> started a lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you >> are interested but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to >> www.yahoogroups.com and then to lexicographylist to join. You have to >> go through the usual Yahoo registration process, I expect. > >> Bob > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 20:16:36 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:16:36 -0800 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Funny, Michael and I just had a discussion about this last month. Ives Goddard showed a while ago that the reconstruction of Illinois /mihsooli/, Kickapoo /me0ooni/ 'boat', Menominee /mEhno:s/ 'raft' and Cree /mihtot/ 'raft' has to be Proto-Algonquian */meh0we0-/ ('0' = theta), where the */meh0-/ does indeed mean 'wood'. The Cree & Menominee cognates show that a */?0/ reconstruction is impossible. Miami /meehtikoo$ia/ 'Frenchman' is from an unrelated etymon, PA */me?tekwi/ 'tree'. Dave > Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal > stop; unvoiced th] 'big' or *mehT- 'wooden' which have identical > reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss 'wooden canoe' is made less likely > by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia 'Frenchman' (lit. > 'wooden-boat person'). From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 20:18:15 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:18:15 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Alan wrote: > Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal > stop; unvoiced th] ‘big’ or *mehT- ‘wooden’ which have identical > reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss ‘wooden canoe’ is made less likely > by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia ‘Frenchman’ (lit. > ‘wooden-boat person’). I'm probably about to get myself in over my head here, but I'm not following this argument. If Proto-Algonquian 'big' *me?T- => mihs- in Illinois, and if Proto-Algonquian 'wood' *mehT- => mihs- in Illinois, then how does Illinois get meeht- for 'wood' in the case of Frenchmen? Would this be a borrowing from some other Algonquian language? If so, what would that have to do with their local word for a 'big' or 'wooden' canoe? Thanks, Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 21:28:52 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:28:52 -0600 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: Thanks to David, Bob and Alan for their replies on this, and to Michael for his original research! So the name Missouri comes from Illinois mihso:ri, which means 'big canoe'. It seems that it was used as an ethnonym for the Missouri tribe used by the Illinois, who appended a standard ethnonymic prefix, meaning 'people of', and which may have sounded something like ou- or we-. The French used the character 8 for this prefix, so their name for the Missouria tribe was something like 8-missouri, or 'the people of the big canoe'. Which came first, the ethnonym or the hydronym? >>From what has been posted, it looks to me like the ethnonym, and this would probably make more sense in terms of qualification by canoe. Is there any independent reason to believe that the Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. What if we consider it as a loan word from Missouria to Illinois, in which the Illinois reinterpreted it as a native word? The Missouria version of the Missouri River ought to be something like: ni-soje 'muddy water' If a bilingual Illinois dealt with them, he would learn that as their name for their river, and could translate that back into Illinois as pekitanoui. But as an ethnonym for the people, he might leave the Missouria version: 8-nisoje 'people of the muddy water', 'nisoje people' This would probably make no sense to unilingual Illinois, and some of them might "correct" the term to something that could be parsed sensibly in Illinois: 8-mihso:ri 'people of the big canoe' We would still need to get the name applied back to the river by the French. So if an Illinois speaker were confronted with the word nisoje referring to a river or a people living on that river, what would be the most efficient way for him to modify that word to be transparent and meaningful in Illinois? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 22:01:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:01:37 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: Mmmm, good question. I'm on several Yahoo lists, mostly hobbies, etc. and I do get lots of spam these days, although I didn't for a long time. I can't say whether their lists are open to harvesting email addresses. I imagine that they have a statement of their "privacy policy" somewhere on the Yahoogroups website. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wallace Chafe" > I've been a little wary of this. Does signing up with Yahoo mean an > increase in spam? Otherwise the list seems like a fine idea. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 21:56:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:56:37 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: I'd say just to write to Wayne himself and let his fingers do the walking. wayne_leman at sil.org Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: Re: lexicography list. > I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical > problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? > > Dave > > > > Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a > > lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you are interested > > but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then > > to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo > > registration process, I expect. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 22:29:17 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:29:17 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Thanks Henning! It's good to know this! Do you have a sense of when and whence the horse came to the Hocank? I suppose from the (Santee?) Sioux? Mid 1700's? Rory "Henning Garvin" cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: Historical questions owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/01/2004 11:03 AM Please respond to siouan And how about the Winnebago? Is there any > reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi > prior to 1700? Most of the contact information on the Hocank has them as being in central and southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. I'm not aware of any sources that site them West of the Mississippi, but this does not mean they did not have groups which had migrated there. Archeological data also seems to indicate that the Hocank were located East of the Mississippi for a substantial period prior to contact. Again, this does not preclude the possibility of small groups or bands migrating west. And what is the word for 'horse' > in Winnebago? s^uNuNk-xate is the word for horse in Hocank. Literally "Big Dog". Henning _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work — and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 22:58:16 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:58:16 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: >> 6. Do we have any language material at all from the >> Missouria? > > Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and > Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. In a quick scan of Lewis and Clark on their way upstream, I found one (p. 65): Wethea 'Hospitality' In net-Siouan, I suppose this would be Wi0ia (0 = thorn)? Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 03:25:42 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:25:42 -0600 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: > what > did the Missouria call themselves? What did their Siouan > neighbors (Osage, Kaw, Quapaw, Oto and Iowa) call them? "The Missouria name for themselves was Ni-u-t'a-tci [the u and final i carry acute accents] (Dorsey 1897:240)" (HNAI 13.461) The synonymy also gives Ioway, Omaha-Ponca, Quapaw, Osage and Kansa forms. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 03:45:47 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:45:47 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to David, Bob and Alan for their replies on > this, and to Michael for his original research! > > So the name Missouri comes from Illinois > mihso:ri, which means 'big canoe'. You're welcome, but check David's message again: he says the word comes from 'wood', not 'big'. My thanks to David for setting me straight there--and to the patient Siouanists during this Algonquian digression. > Is there any independent reason to believe that the > Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly > big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. And recasting the question: as the Illinois had the word and thing 'canoe', why would they distinguish the Missourias as 'those who have canoes'? According to Carl Masthay's edition of an Illinois-French dictionary of early 18c., the basic sense of the word miss8ri was 'dugout canoe'; a bark canoe was called 8ic8es mis8ri. So neither does it appear that the Missourias were distinguished for having dugouts rather than bark canoes. Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 2 05:08:36 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:08:36 -0600 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: >> So the name Missouri comes from Illinois >> mihso:ri, which means 'big canoe'. > > You're welcome, but check David's message again: he says the word comes > from 'wood', not 'big'. My thanks to David for setting me straight > there--and to the patient Siouanists during this Algonquian digression. Oops! You're right! So mihso:ri = 'wooden canoe', or 'dugout'. >> Is there any independent reason to believe that the >> Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly >> big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. > > And recasting the question: as the Illinois had the word and thing > 'canoe', why would they distinguish the Missourias as 'those who have > canoes'? Indeed. > According to Carl Masthay's edition of an Illinois-French dictionary of > early 18c., the basic sense of the word miss8ri was 'dugout canoe'; a > bark canoe was called 8ic8es mis8ri. So neither does it appear that the > Missourias were distinguished for having dugouts rather than bark canoes. Is mis8ri = miss8ri ? And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? If so, then wouldn't that mean that mihso:ri has become the basic word for 'boat' or 'canoe' in Illinois, with presumption of 'dugout' if it's unqualified? But if the mihs- part of that is from PA 'wood', then the -o:ri part should be 'boat'. Is that ever used independently in Illinois? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 2 05:46:00 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:46:00 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: >> what >> did the Missouria call themselves? What did their Siouan >> neighbors (Osage, Kaw, Quapaw, Oto and Iowa) call them? > > "The Missouria name for themselves was Ni-u-t'a-tci [the u and final i > carry acute accents] (Dorsey 1897:240)" (HNAI 13.461) The synonymy also > gives Ioway, Omaha-Ponca, Quapaw, Osage and Kansa forms. Thanks, Alan! That certainly seems to match the Omaha term given in Fletcher and La Flesche. Ni-u'-t?a- almost certainly means 'drowned', and the (a)tci is probably equivalent to OP athi', pending John, Bob, or one of the Chiwerenists shooting me down. I've just run across a very interesting, if confusing, discussion of this name by an early Presbyterian missionary, Rev. Wm. Hamilton, in Transactions and Reports of the Nebraska State Historical Society, vol. 1 (1885). The spelling given varies wildly from one mention to the next, starting with Ne-yu-ta-ca, and morphing to Ne-u-tach, then Ne-u-cha-ta, then ne o-cha-tan-ye, to ne-o-cha-ta. Explanation 1 says it means they were camped at the mouth of a stream (which makes perfect sense if u-tach or whatever means 'mouth of a river' in Chiwere); explanation 2 given by Le Fleche [sic] says some men were in a canoe and were drowned. This goes along with both Illinois canoes and Siouan drowning, but it begs for very interesting story to explain it! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 2 06:28:05 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:28:05 -0700 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three > different contexts. We have the Maha as the > UmaN'haN, or the Omaha tribe, which is said to > mean 'upstream'. But we also have the Pani-maha, > who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems > sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha > or Arikara as well. The element here is *maNhaN 'upstream, against the flow'. This is well attested in Dhegiha, mostly in a form *hkimaNhaN that doesn't seem to appear in Omaha-Ponca, where ita'gha=tta is used for 'upstream'. (And 'downstream' is hi'de=atta, etymologically 'to the base'.) A Quapaw village named i'maNhaN is known. In Ioway-Otoe you find iroma(N)ha(N) and uma(N)'ha(N) 'upstream', and in Winnebago maNaNhaN' 'go against the medium', and hiromaN'haNiNj^a' 'at the upper part of a river'. As far as I know the element isn't known outside of these languages. I think paNdhiNmaNhaN in the sense of 'Skiri' or 'Arikara' is transparently analyzable as 'upstream Caddoan'. The Skiri are upstream of the rest of the Pawnee on the Platte, and the Arikara are upstream of the Omahas and Poncas on the Missouri. Any supposition that the term applies to the Omaha comes from uninitiated outsiders being confused by the element maNhaN. > And between the Kansas and > Platte rivers, we have a couple of small rivers > flowing into the Missouri from southeastern > Nebraska called Nemaha, presumably Ni-maha. > So are these maha's coming from the Missouria, > Osage or Kaws, with the meaning of 'upstream' > on the Missouri? The Nemaha is the 'river upstream', > the Pani-maha are the 'upstream Pawnees', and the > O-maha are the 'ones who dwell in an upstream context'? The element here is *maNh-a 'earth, mud, muddy, miry', cf. Dakhota maNkha (maNh-ka) 'earth', OP maNa' 'bank', (s^u'de)maNha 'fog' (riverbank smoke), Ks maNha' 'land', Os niN'maNhaN 'marsh', IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', Wi maNaNha' 'mud, be muddy'. > 4. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Big Sioux > River is known to the French as the River of the Mahas, > apparently because the Omaha-Ponka were dwelling there > in the late 17th century. Tabeau, probably writing > around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a > "rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says > this is probably the Des Moines, but the river seems > always to be mentioned in the context of the Minnesota, > the James and the Upper Missouri, which suggests the > Big Sioux. To Tabeau, the river of the Mahas seems > appropriately to be Omaha Creek in northeastern > Nebraska, where the Omaha Big Village is located, > but this is barely mentioned only in passing. Could > mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old > (river of the) Maha? In French, it would be > pronounced something like /mohaN/, which is at least > as close to /umaN'haN/ as is /maha/. Given the identification of the stream, that seems very likely to me. > 7. It looks like we have at least two words for 'horse' > in MVS. In the Lower Missouri region, we have /kawa/, > from Spanish 'caballo', shared by the Osage, Kaw and > I understand the Pawnee. I think the Dhegiha form is Ks kka'wa, Os hka'wa, the difference in kk and hk being something of an arbitrary orthographic convention, though preaspiration of the tense stops is pretty audible in Osage. There is an Omaha name kkawa'ha listed in Fletcher & LaFlesche (1911:189), a nikkie name in the INs^ta'saNda clan, "meaning uncertain." This could be either 'horse hide' or just 'horse'. Wichita has kawa':rah 'horse' (citation form) ~ taaras (combining form) (a' = accented a). Since the Osage are reported to have obtained horses int he early days by raising the Wichita, maybe they got the term from the same source. (Wichita also has wa:kha'c 'cow'.) > From further up, especially > perhaps the northeastern Nebraska region, we have > 'horse' derived from the 'dog' term, *s^uN'ka. In > Omaha, Ponka, Iowa and Oto, the word completely > shifts. In OP, a new word, s^iN'nudoN, is coined for > 'dog'. I'm pretty sure Bob Rankin discovered an etymology for s^inudaN, but I'm not recalling the details. > What do Iowa and Oto have for 'dog'? In > Lakhota, the new form for 'horse' is the qualified > 'dog', s^uN'ka-wakhaN'. Is it the same in all the > Dakotan languages? And what is the word for 'horse' > in Winnebago? Ioway s^uN(uN)'ne, Otoe s^uN(uN)e 'horse' = eng, n = n or enye before e and i Ioway s^uN(uN)'keni (or -kene), Otoe suN(uN)'keni (or -kene) 'dog' (common dog) (cf. OP ukkedhiN 'common') Wi s^uNuN'k 'dog, horse', s^uNuNxe'de, s^uNuNkxe'de 'horse' (big dog) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 2 06:34:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:34:25 -0700 Subject: lexicography list. In-Reply-To: <031901c3d0b2$e6995370$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Mmmm, good question. I'm on several Yahoo lists, mostly hobbies, etc. > and I do get lots of spam these days, although I didn't for a long time. Everybody gets more spam these days, whether or not they have anything to do with Yahoo. I never used to get it via the University, but now useful communications there are drowned in Viagra offers. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 2 06:37:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:37:15 -0700 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: <3FF4E4B6.3080302@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > "The Missouria name for themselves was Ni-u-t'a-tci [the u and final i > carry acute accents] (Dorsey 1897:240)" (HNAI 13.461) The synonymy also > gives Ioway, Omaha-Ponca, Quapaw, Osage and Kansa forms. I was going to say, first stop for ethnonyms is always the synonymies in the HNAI. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 2 13:32:35 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:32:35 -0000 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 2 14:26:44 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:26:44 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? Bruce From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 14:25:12 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:25:12 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: >>According to Carl Masthay's edition of an Illinois-French dictionary of >>early 18c., the basic sense of the word miss8ri was 'dugout canoe'; a >>bark canoe was called 8ic8es mis8ri. > > Is mis8ri = miss8ri ? > > And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? Yes to both. In miss8ri, the 8 = ou, and in 8ic8es it's w. (Cf. Abenaki wigwa-ol, Plains Cree waskwayi-o:s- 'birchbark canoe'.) > If so, then wouldn't that mean that mihso:ri has > become the basic word for 'boat' or 'canoe' in > Illinois, with presumption of 'dugout' if it's > unqualified? Seems so to me, but I'll defer to David. (He has written The Miami-Illinois Language, 2002, U. Neb. Press, and An Overview of the Illinois Language in the intro to Masthay's edition of the Illinois-French dict.) > But if the mihs- part of that is from PA 'wood', > then the -o:ri part should be 'boat'. Is that > ever used independently in Illinois? I don't think so (David?), but it is used in at least one other noun, irer8ri 'canot de bois, pirogue', which seems literally to mean something like 'tippy canoe'(?) The same widespread Proto-Algonquian word *o:Si [S = esh] is used as the bare noun in several languages, e.g., Plains Cree o:si & Menominee o:s, and occurs with the 'wood' prefix also in several eastern languages. In Ojibway, it occurs (only?) in we-mitig-o:Si 'Frenchman', lit. 'he who has a wooden boat/canoe'. This construction for 'Frenchman' has a long history, having been recorded by Champlain in Montagnais in 1608-12 as mistigoche, whence it was probably calqued south- and westward (Illinois-Miami, Shawnee, Fox, Ojibway). Alan From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 2 14:30:27 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:30:27 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes the use of wa- meaning 'around' could be the explanation of wawinyanka 'womanizer= sleeping around'. ?........ Not seriously Bruce From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 15:15:54 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:15:54 -0600 Subject: Mandan re-redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > The element here is *maNh-a 'earth, mud, muddy, miry', cf. Dakhota maNkha > (maNh-ka) 'earth', OP maNa' 'bank', (s^u'de)maNha 'fog' (riverbank smoke), > Ks maNha' 'land', Os niN'maNhaN 'marsh', IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', Wi > maNaNha' 'mud, be muddy'. Any chance this is part of Mandan maNta 'Missouri River'? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 2 15:31:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:31:06 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: There is more somewhere. I recall John and I puzzling over several names. I think one turned out to be "Inspires Fear" (the common MVS name), but there were several other names. I thought it was in L&C names we were asked to do for the fellow who was doing the new edition, but it could have been something else. I saw some in print somewhere too and immediately xeroxed a copy for myself. It's at the office and I'll have to find it. It's clear the language was very similar to Otoe though, since the remnant of the tribe joined the Otoes and the old reservation in Oklahoma along with the name of the tribe is "Otoe-Missouri" today. They spoke one language, and I think they are generally aware which families are Otoe and which are historically Missouria. Jimm could clarify this I'm sure. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Historical questions > > > > > >> 6. Do we have any language material at all from the > >> Missouria? > > > > Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and > > Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. > > In a quick scan of Lewis and Clark on their way upstream, > I found one (p. 65): > > Wethea 'Hospitality' > > In net-Siouan, I suppose this would be Wi0ia (0 = thorn)? > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 2 15:46:57 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:46:57 -0600 Subject: postpositions Message-ID: In Siouan yes; I can't speak for Caddoan. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 7:32 AM Subject: postpositions > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > Bruce > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 16:36:54 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:36:54 -0800 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: > And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. > If so, then wouldn't that mean that mihso:ri has become the basic word for > 'boat' or 'canoe' in Illinois, with presumption of 'dugout' if it's > unqualified? Even by the old Illinois period, it appears to be the basic 'boat' or 'canoe' word in Illinois, definitely so in Miami. Its cognate is also the basic 'boat' word in Kickapoo. > But if the mihs- part of that is from PA 'wood', then the -o:ri part should be > 'boat'. Is that ever used independently in Illinois? No, only as a final. But it is used independently in a few languages, as in Plains Cree /o:si/ 'canoe'. (Remember, Cree /mihtot/ = 'raft'.) David From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 17:38:04 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:38:04 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: >>And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? > > > It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not > positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from > Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a > morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and > its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Alan From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 18:34:38 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:34:38 -0800 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: >> It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not >> positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from >> Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a >> morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and >> its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. > But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not > the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, > birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. Dave From boris at terracom.net Fri Jan 2 20:39:33 2004 From: boris at terracom.net (Al Knutson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:39:33 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: <3FF5AC7C.1070901@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: In Menomini (from Bloomfiled's Lexicon) p281 wi:ki:h (-san) birch-bark, piece of birch-bark (inanimate noun?) wi:ki:hsapah birch-bark wall wi:ki:hsa:tek (-ok) white birch tree (animate noun) Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:38 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Missouri David Costa wrote: >>And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? > > > It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not > positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from > Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a > morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and > its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Alan From boris at terracom.net Fri Jan 2 21:26:36 2004 From: boris at terracom.net (Al Knutson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:26:36 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To the 'birch' material in Menomin add: we:kop 'basswood bark, piece of basswood bark (pl: wi:kopyan) we:kopemeh 'basswood tree (pl: wi:kopemehsyak) AN Bloomfield p 275 Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:38 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Missouri David Costa wrote: >>And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? > > > It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not > positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from > Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a > morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and > its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Alan From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 21:53:24 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:53:24 -0800 Subject: birchbark versus birch Message-ID: > But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not > the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, > birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. It might also be worth mentioning here that in Ojibwe /wiigwaas/ as an animate noun means 'birch tree', while /wiigwaas/ as an INanimate noun means 'birch bark'. (From the Nichols/Nyholm Minnesota Ojibwe dictionary.) David From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 00:34:01 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:34:01 -0600 Subject: birch (was Missouri) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: >>>It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not >>>positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from >>>Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a >>>morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and >>>its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. > > >>But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not >>the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, >>birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. > > > Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois > root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. I think it means 'birchbark' in the Algonquian languages. Gravier gives 8ic8essi 'canot d'ecorce, item ecorce de boul[e]au' ('bark-canoe, also birchbark'), and 8ic8essimingi is thus best translated as 'birchbark tree' rather than 'birch-tree tree'. The fact that Gravier glosses it as 'bouleau arbre' ('birch-tree') doesn't mean that 8ic8essi means "plain birch" in Illinois. An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. If Illinois 8ic8essi really meant 'birch-tree', then -imingi would be redundant. For paper/white/canoe birch, besides Bloomfield's Menominee form wi:ki:hsa:htek cited by Alan K, there's Rogers' Northern Ojibway wi:kwa:ssa:htik. Both mean literally 'birchbark-tree' and consist of the word for birchbark plus the Proto-Algonquian medial *-a:htekw- 'stick, stem'. I think Illinois 8ic8essi is thus just what Gravier defined it as, 'birchbark'. Alan H. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 00:57:10 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:57:10 -0800 Subject: birch (was Missouri) Message-ID: Tho one problem is that this would actually produce a form *wi:kekopimin$ya, not *wi:kopimin$ya (the /o/ should really be /we/), so you'd need haplology to make this work, and I can't think of any other examples of haplology in Algonquian derivation. Plus, do we know that basswood bark was used for houses? I always thought the salient usage of basswood bark was for cordage. > An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya > 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- > 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 01:12:34 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:12:34 -0500 Subject: Checking connection. Please disregard Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work � and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 02:49:13 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:49:13 -0600 Subject: birch (was Missouri) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: > Tho one problem is that this would actually produce a form *wi:kekopimin$ya, > not *wi:kopimin$ya (the /o/ should really be /we/), so you'd need haplology > to make this work Siebert (1967) reconstructs PA *wi:kopiminSya 'basswood' on the basis of: Fox wi:kopimiSi Menominee we:kopemeh Ojibway wi:kopi:mi:SS Shawnee wiikopimiiSi Miami-Illinois wikopiminSi Penobscot wik at pimisi [@ = schwa] Whether he was warranted in his assertion that it comes from PA *wi:k- 'shelter, house, dwell' + *-ekop- 'bark' I don't know, but it does make sense semantically--if not haplologically! (Incidentally, the word was borrowed into English in late 18c. as wicopy, with at least 3 fiber-yielding referents.) > do we know that basswood bark was used for > houses? I always thought the salient usage of basswood bark was for cordage. Yes, it was used in houses, and yes, it's main use was as cordage. Among the Ojibway, at least, basswood bark (or fiber prepared from it) was used for lashing together the pole framework of wigwam-style houses and securing the sheets of birchbark to the frame. Wigwam (Abenaki) and wickiup (Fox) also come from the root *wi:k-, as perhaps does the birchbark word. Alan H. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Sat Jan 3 06:21:36 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:21:36 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: I'm coming in here rather late on this discussion of the name for the Missouria People, so I'll try to pick up and insert the various comments from the past several days. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Historical questions > It's clear the language was very similar to Otoe though, since the remnant of > the tribe joined the Otoes and the old reservation in Oklahoma along with the > name of the tribe is "Otoe-Missouri" today. They spoke one language, and I > think they are generally aware which families are Otoe and which are > historically Missouria. Jimm could clarify this I'm sure. > Bob The Missouria took refuge with the Otoes in 1798. It was said that there were about a 100 survivors who remained under their own leaders & chiefs for about 30-40 years. During this time, most intermarried with the Otoe, and by mid 1850s, the Missouria were being absorbed by the Otoe. However, families can recall to this day who are from the Missouria, and what family members were direct descendants. Some of these families are identified by surnames that identify the original Missouria ancestor, such as: Big Soldier, Gawhega, et.al. Truman Dailey's father, George Washington Dailey-Xra S^age (Old Eagle) was the last recognized Missouri Eagle Clan Chief. There were no more than 3 or 4 Clans that survived from the Missouria. The official tribal name is "Otoe-Missouria". It has an "-a" at the end. When old lders addressed a gathering of the people, they would say in the language: "Ho, Ji'were Nyu't^chi....." (Greetings! Otoe & Missouria People....". > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rory M Larson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: Historical questions > > > >> 6. Do we have any language material at all from the Missouria? > > > Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and > > > Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. Dorsey mentioned a few instances of Missouria dialect in his transcription notes for his manusripts, however, as I recall, it seemed to have to do with sentence particles. There are word lists and kin terms that early chroniclers completed and these were noted on my bibliography at John's hosted site. Some old people seem to suggest that Truman Dailey had some peculiarities in his speech that could be attributed to some Missouria features of his father's language. There were some interesting uses of words, and even there were words that he did not know, but were known by his older sister. His mother was half Ioway-half Otoe. I never explored these differences out of regard to his age and stature. Good Native respect for elders does not permitt such direct questioning of an elder authority. In reviewing several Otoe texts that he recorded, I have not picked up anything different from the usual IOM speech patterns. Perhaps, Louanna F or Jill Greer, who also worked with him could share any unique Missouria dialectal variations. Dorsey had recorded a number of names, including: [NOTE: First rendering ultilizes additional fonts, including the Siouian fonts developed by John Koontz. This may become garbled by computers without these fonts, so I give a second rendering of the names in Net Siouian]: NadwáXànsheThkáyìße (Nadwa' XaN'she Thka'yiNGe) = Young White Mule. This name became shortened to the surname "White". ÚnNáhe Xánshe (UNna'he XaN'she) = Big/ Great Acheiver Múnje Xánshe (MuN'je XaN'she) = Big Black Bear MáyanKída Xánshe (Ma'yaN Ki'da XaN'she) = Great Guardian of the Country, a.k.a., Big Soldier JédandaWahú (Je'daN Wahu') = Coming From the Ocean ChúdaWeMi (Chu'daWeMi) = Light In the House Woman AhúMàngri (Ahu' MaN'gri) = Wing Above In this sampling of names above (there are more), the only non-Ioway/ Otoe rendering is in the word "xaN'she" (big; great). NOTE: Ioway: xaN'nye ~ xaNn~e; Otoe: xaN'je. I have rendered the word as given by Dorsey, i.e., xaN'she; however, I have since wondered if it is correct. Some of Dorsey's IOM narrative transcriptions use the letter "s" to denote theta sound, as in: thi (foot) would be written as "si". Then he proceeds to write the phoneme "s" as "sh" and does not seem to note instances of the phoneme "sh". He also neglects other features, such as glottal stops, etc. My question now is if the the word for Missouria "big; great" is indeed: xaN'she (OR) xaN'se? >>From the Journal of L&C we have: The Cheifs & Principal men of the Ottoes & Missouris made by M L. & W C the 3rd August 180410 Viz. Indian Names Tribe English Signifiation l.We-ar-ruge-nor Ottoe Little Thief 2.Shingo-ton go Otto Big horse We tha a Missourie Hospatallity 3.wau-pc-m Miss: Au-ho-ning ga M Ba Za con ja Ottoe Au-ho-ne-ga Miss. > > In a quick scan of Lewis and Clark on their way upstream, > > I found one (p. 65): > > Wethea 'Hospitality' > > In net-Siouan, I suppose this would be Wi0ia (0 = thorn)? > > Rory Perhaps this is an old term, however, I am unable to make anything of it at the moment. There seems to be some elements missing, as the combination of "i+a" in "Withia" is unlikely. I note that their English spelling is not too sharp either. > But we also have the Pani-maha, > > who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems > > sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha > > or Arikara as well. I am not familiar with the above term. Pawnee in IOM is: PaNYi; Arickara/ Aricakaree is: PaNyi Busa ~ Butha (Sand Pawnee: I haven't a clue for the term). > > The element here is *maNhaN 'upstream, against the flow'. This is well > attested in Dhegiha, . In Ioway-Otoe you find iroma(N)ha(N) and > uma(N)'ha(N) 'upstream', > , IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', maN'ha: earth; dirt; (perhaps mud) maN'hathriN: mud; maN'hathriNthriN: muddy nyi'mahaN: dirty water (Nemaha River). However, the term nyi'soje (smoky waters) is used as well for muddy waters. And then, there is Nyi'Suje (Otoe)/ Nyi'Shuje (Ioway) (Red or Smoky Waters) . This is the name for the Missouri River. > Ni-u'-t?a- almost certainly means 'drowned', > and the (a)tci is probably equivalent to OP athi', > > Presbyterian missionary, Rev. Wm. Hamilton, in > ne-o-cha-ta. Explanation 1 says it means they > were camped at the mouth of a stream > of a river' in Chiwere); explanation 2 given by > Le Fleche [sic] says some men were in a canoe > and were drowned. This goes along with both > Illinois canoes and Siouan drowning, but it begs > for very interesting story to explain it! > I imagine the drowning is pioneer~trader folk etymology. Ñút^achi (N~u't?achi) means quite simply that they Dwell at the River Fork. (ñi [nyi/ n~i] water; ut?a' river fork/ branch; chi dwell; reside; live). > >> Is there any independent reason to believe that the > >> Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly > >> big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. Current discussions on the Algonquin source of the name Missouria has rendered the gloss or reference to either dugout canoes or even birchbark canoes. I am not aware of any historical documentations that the Missouria made dugouts or birchbark canoes. Tribal references in traditional stories simply use the term: "ba'je" (boat), and make no further distinction. However, does anyone know if the birch tree used for canoe making grows presently or historically in northern Missouri State? Jimm > From wablenica at mail.ru Sat Jan 3 11:30:20 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:30:20 +0300 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello John, KJE> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: >> What I was trying to suggest here that probably didn't come through in >> what I actually wrote is that WICHA is now "productive" with animate >> verbs like 'kill' and WA is non-productive and fossilized in the derived >> nominals. Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear. Bob KJE> That pretty well sums up my feelings, but with the caveat that wic^ha KJE> looks like it has been productive since at least the middle 1800s with KJE> kte. I picked out kte as a sample stem for simplicity's sake; things KJE> might look different with a wider variety of verbs. It looks like wa is KJE> not productive in animate references today, but it seems reasonable to KJE> suppose that there may have been a time when both wic^ha and wa were KJE> productive, with some difference in meaning, or some difference in social KJE> or geographic distribution. I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? Talking about "animate wa-", let's consider some sample of wa- verbs, say, wa-a- subset. These have a great deal of detransitivized verbs with animate or at least not exclusively inanimate objects implied (one third of 60 wa-a- verbs). I doubt that there is a considerable discrimination toward verbs with animate PAT for taking a wa- plug. Below I add two lists, with wicha- and wa-a- words. Talking about wicha- we should consider also the functions of wicha- as nominalizer with the meaning of "human" (not only with body parts). I excluded the body parts from the wicha- list (as well as derivatives of wichasha and wichaxpi), but kept the derivatives of wicha- male, just for case. Best wishes, Constantine Chmielnicki 1. Wicha- prefixed. wicha'akih^?aN Starving, famine wicha'atkuku a father, their father wicha'bapi Blame wicha'caNcaN The ague wicha'chepa Human fatness, obesity wicha'chepahala a certain high but not wide mountain wicha'cheya Weeping, crying wicha'chiNca Children, posterity, offspring, wicha'cokuN Threatening, intending evil wicha'chuwita The sense of cold experienced by human beings, the feeling of coldness wicha'glata the women who follow the men in singing at the war dance or other like dances wicha'gnakapi Dead bodies laid on top of the ground or scaffolds; the scaffold on which a dead person is placed wicha'gnas^ka gooseberries wicha'gnaye a person who deceives; deception wicha'g^aNg^aN Not crowded a sprinkling of people wicha'hooyu'spa a voice or sound record; a sound recorder wicha'huNkake Ancestors wicha'huNku a mother, mothers wica'h^aNh^aN wicha'h^aNh^aN the smallpox wicha'h^api bodies interred, graves, tombs wicha'h^api ogna'ke a coffin wicha'h^ca an old man; a father-in-law wicha'h^muNg^e s?a [R.: a magician] wicha'h^uNwiN Putrifaction wicha'h^wa Drowsiness wicha'z^ipa a wasp wicha'kahiyayA to carry round to them, to sing to them wicha'kahuN'huNzapi a cradle wicha'kah^apa a driver, one who drives wicha'kicas^la a barber wicha'kicilowaN to wail or sing for, as for those who have gone on the warpath etc. wicha'kichopi Calling, invitation wicha'kig^epi [R.: quarreling] wicha'kini Resurrection wicha'khipi Robbery wicha'ksapa Wisdom wicha'kte s?a One who kills wicha'ktepi Killing wicha'k?upi Giving wicha'luzahe Swiftness wicha'naks^ecapi The cholera wicha'naNka Tremor wicha'ni they live; life; prosperity; used of many, as wiconi is of one wicha'oh^?aNkho dexterity. wicha'phehiNkag^api False hair, a wig wicha'po a swelling wicha'sote a general dying, the decease of many wicha's^a Man, a man, mankind wicha'takunis^ni Destruction wicha'taNkag^api a tent with certain figures representing ribs and hearts, seemingly, painted somewhat horizontally around on the outer surface of the tipi wicha'thaNkala The gull; a bird that is white, breast blackish, legs short, bill short and not broad like that of pigeons; it lives near lakes, and it flies always over the water wicha'thaNs^na a single man wicha'thoka a male captive wicha'thokeca Differences; things different wicha'thuthe Roughness, as of the hands, but not chapping, which is: wichayuh^'i wicha't?A The dead wicha'witkowiNla [R.: a man who takes many women in succession, but does not keep any of them long wicha'wiwazica a widower wicha'woh^a a son-in-law, my son-inlaw a man who lives with his relatives, lit. a buried man, or one who being attracted to a family stays on with them wicha'woh^a thatha'h^ca a small-sized nig^e saNla, antilope wicha'woh^ayA to take or have for a son-in-law wicha'wota a feast or banquet wicha'ya Manly wicha'yaz^ipa a bee, bees wicha'yaz^ipa thachaN'haNpi Honey wicha'yasupi Condemnation; pronouncing sentence wicha'yas^?iNyaNyaN s?e In sudden surprise, esp. in seeing something never before seen wicha'yataNpi Praise, compliments wicha'yazaN a being sick, a sickness wicha'yuhe a master wicha'yuh^?i Chapping, as of the hands wicha'yuskapi Purgatory wicha'yuwah^panica Making poor wicha'yuwiNtapi Honoring, as the Dakotas do at feasts, calling the host by some signifying relationship or title of friendship, or the gesture of stroking in or before the face in token of respect or friendly greeting and saying; Hai'ye, haiye 2. Wicha- as an infix. awi'chas^?a Shouting awi'chayaspuya The itch, itching aze'wichahiNs^ma a certain black caterpillar found in woods huwi'chayuthipa a little piece of meat that is found between the muscles below the knees of a buffalo is^ta'wichaniyaN an epidemic of sore eyes[R.: sore eyes is^ta'wichaniyaNpi wi The month of March is^ta'wichayazaN wi the moon in which sore eyes prevail; a moon answering generally to the month of March nuN'h^ wicha'h^loke s?e With ears opened ola'kholwichaye s^ni Not caring for relatives, without natural affection o'wichak?ola hu Western virgin's bower, traveller's joy, the old man's board. Clematis ligustici folia The crowfoot family owi'chawapi a list, as of names owo'wichak?u an issue station phez^i' iwi'chakhoyaka Dark-green bulrush. Scirpus atrovirens. sipha'wichayaksa a certain black beetle that snaps. When people have pain in the tips of the toes, they ^se this word to denote it, assuming that this beetle has bitten them thawo'hiyaye wicha'wote The Paschal Lamb thewi'chamni Sweating thi'wichakte a murderer; to commit murder thiwi'chaktepi Murder wauN'spewichakhiye an apostle, disciple wawi'chak?u to donate, make a donation wawi'chak?upi a gift wazi'wicha'gnas^ka Pine berries wi'wichagnupi Accusation, blaming wi'wichaz^ica Riches wi'wichayuNg^api Questions wol'wichayapi a banquet, a feast wo'wichagnaye Deception wo'wichakigna The Holy Spirit, the Comforter. A comforter wo'wichak?upi Allowance, distribution, issue; offering 3. Animate wa-. waa'blezA to be observing, to be clear-sighted, have the use of one's senses waa'chaNze to be angry at others, ill-tempered waa'chaNzekA to be ill-tempered waa'hiNh^payA to have something fall on one; an idiomatic express.We were lucky onesto be fallen on something waa'hoyeyA to reprove, scold. Note: the 1st pers. singl. is not used waa'iyA to talk about, to slander; to try a case in court waa'iye s?a a slanderer waa'kag^A to add to, to make a lie on waa'kag^api a making on; a blasphemy perhaps waa'kicag^A to play jokes on; make sport of waa'kiktuNz^A to forget waa'kiktuNz^api Forgetfulness waa'khita to hunt, seek waa'nag^optaN to listen to, obey waa'nakiks^iN to expose one's self for others, to take the place of one in danger waa'napta to stop, forbid people waa'nataN to rush on, make an attack waa'phe to wait, be in waiting waa'sniyAN to heal, make well waa'sniyaN a healer, a healing waa's?api Applause by acclamation, waa's?iN to covet, desire what is another's; to stay where others are eating expecting to share waa'uNyeyA to scare away, as game by one's coming waa'yuptA to answer --It would be interesting, of course, to learn the difference between wawiyuNg^api, wiwichayuNg^api, wi'yuNg^api, and wo'(w)iyuNg^e From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:48:36 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:48:36 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: Listeros, Apparently the filter installed on my e-mail account to counteract junk mail acted upon messages coming in from the Siouan list. The messages I missed concerning Missouri and related matters have been forwarded to me by another member of the list and I have a few comments. I will mark my responses with my initials MM: ======================== >As I start to write my thesis, beginning with an overview of Omaha history, >a >miscellany of questions has been occurring to me, some relevant and some >not. >I thought I would post some of these to the list, to find out what is known >about them. >1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does >anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy River'; compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', and /pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy/ 'muddy river, Missouri river'. MM: The first recording of an Algonquian name for the Missouri River was done on either June 25 or June 26, 1673, by Jacques Marquette during his stopover at the Peoria village on the Des Moines River. We can see the hydronym that the Peoria, a Miami-Illinois-speaking tribe, gave him on his holograph map of the Mississippi. Marquette wrote (8 = the sound /w/). This is Miami-Illinois /peekihtanwi/, a third-person inanimate intransitive conjunct verb that has undergone initial change (/piik-/ > /peek-/ ). It means �it-flows-mud�: /peek-/ �mud�, /-ihtan-/ �flow� , and /-wi/ the requisite verb suffix. Verbs are commonly place names in Miami-Illinois, as elsewhere in Algonquian. This Miami-Illinois term is cognate of course with the Fox term offered above. In late historical times the river was known in Miami-Illinois as /peekamiiki siipiiwi/ �it-is-mud-water river. Marquette's map can be found in a number of publications, but the best copy is Plate V in Sarah Jones Tucker's collection of maps on early Illinois: _ Indian Villages of the Illinois Country_, Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 2(1). Pt. 1. Springfield, 1942. Her copy is the size of the original, which is at the Jesuits' archives in St-Jerome, Quebec. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work � and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 14:56:11 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:56:11 -0600 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: <009201c3d1c2$064fa790$cc430945@JIMM> Message-ID: Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > However, does anyone know if the birch tree used for canoe making grows > presently or historically in northern Missouri State? The southern limit of white/paper/canoe birch (exclusive of the Appalachians) is from N. Ohio to N. Illinois to N. Iowa to S. Dakota. I don't know what other birch species might range further south and have the necessary trunk-diameter and bark characteristics. Elm-bark was also used for building canoes in the eastern U.S. Alan H. From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:05:38 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:05:38 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: ---------- From: "R. Rankin" To: Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 9:57 am >2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ possibly come from The late Don Lance had a paper on the name Missouri (he taught at MU in Columbia). I don't know if he published it before his death last year or not. MM: Don�s paper, titled �The Pronunciation of Missouri: Variation and Change in American English,� came out just recently in American Speech (Vol. 78, No. 3, Fall 2003). I helped him with the Algonquian language aspects of the paper that are discussed in the introduction. � 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three different contexts. MM: For the record, occurs on Marquette�s map of the Mississippi, rather near , >4. Tabeau, probably writing around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a >"rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says this is probably the >Des >Moines, . . . Could mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old >(river � of the) Maha? MM: No. This is simply an English speaker�s attempt to write the French term �riviere des moines�. The etymology of Des Moines has long been disuputed, but the best bet is from the new dictionary of Native American placenames that Bill Bright is editing (with the questionable help of several of us on the list). MM: True, although there was really no good reason why it was disputed. There were never any �monks� (Fr. Moines) on this river. And it has been known for a long time (see Callendar�s piece on the Illinois in HNAI vol. 15) that the French referred to the Illinois band known as the Moingwena as �les Moines,� shortening the name of this people just as they shortened the names of many tribes (Les Pes for the Peoria, les Kas for the Kaskaskia, les Mis for Miami, les Ouias for the Ouiatanons, les Poux for the Potawatomi, etc., etc. Dave Costa figured out and explained the �shit-face� etymology of �Moines� in his Miami-Illinois tribe names paper (Miami-Illinois Tribe Names, Proceedings of the Thirty-first Algonquian Conference (2000): 30-53). I took Dave�s ball, or cowpie, and ran with it in my recent paper in the journal names on �Missouri,� ("On the Birthday and Etymology of the Placename Missouri") by showing the name's development in French, British and American cartography�and getting quite a bit of flack from folks in Des Moines, Iowa, and Des Moines, Oregon. :-) Michael In the Des Moines entry Dave Costa relates it to the French shortening of the Algonquian tribal name /Moyiinkweena/, a derogatory term used by the Peorias meaning "visage plein d'ordure" (shit-faces). _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:10:51 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:10:51 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: From: "David Costa" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 11:07 am >Thanks, David! That's a big help! Is there a reference or anything for >Michael's article? Well, Michael himself might want to provide this, but he could be offline due to the holidays, so it is: Michael McCafferty. 2003. 'On the Birthday and Etymology of the Placename Missouri'. Names 51.2 (June 2003): 31-45. Michael discusses this name in much more historical detail in his article, but the general connection between 'Missouri' and /mihsoori/ has been recognized for quite some time. It's mentioned on page 461 of HNAI volume 13, but it was known way before that as well. I have no idea who might have mentioned it in print first. Maybe Michael would know? MM: I follow Lounsbury�s in dealing with native place names, and nothing I read in the earlier descriptions of �Missouri� satisfied Lounsbury�s requirements for **historical and linguistic accuracy**. That is why I wrote a new piece on �Missouri�. I�m not aware of who first wrote about the place name. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Expand your wine savvy � and get some great new recipes � at MSN Wine. http://wine.msn.com From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:24:08 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:24:08 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: From: Alan Hartley To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 11:56 am In Michael's absence, here's what I have for Missouri(a): < French Missouris (pl.; 1687) < Fr. 8emess8rit (1673; the character 8 is used in French transcriptions of North American languages to represent the sounds spelled ou in French) < Illinois we:mihso:rit 'person who has a big canoe' < we:- (3d pers. sg. prefix o- in the changed mode of the conjunct order) + mihso:ri 'big canoe' (as missouri 1725, Internat. J. Amer. Ling. LVII. (1991) 374) + -t (3d pers. sg. conjunct suffix); < mihs- 'big' + -o:ri 'canoe' (< PA *o:si). MM: Actually, /we:mihso:rita/. As I noted in my paper on the topic, this is morphophonemic wi-mihs-oor-i-t-a. wi (and ablauted /wee-/)is the third-person possessive prefix. The rest of the term is �wood�-�watercraft�-inanimate noun suffix-third person animate intransitive participle marker-third person animate intransitive participle ending. Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal stop; unvoiced th] 'big' or *mehT- 'wooden' which have identical reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss 'wooden canoe' is made less likely by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia 'Frenchman' (lit. 'wooden-boat person'). MM: In my paper I went down the wrong path in analyzing Miami-Illinois /mihs-/. I took it to mean �big� as in Miami-Illinois /mihsisiipiiwi/ �big river�, /mihsihkinaahkwa/, the term for the painted terrapin but literally �big turtle�, and perhaps even /mihsiimina/ �pawpaw� (although that�s debatable.). In any event the �Miss-� of �Missouri� is /mihs-/ �wood�. At the time I was working on �Missouri� I was aware of only one term in Miami-Illinois with the /mihs-/ �wood� initial and that was /mihsi/ �piece of firewood� and so I naturally avoided that analysis. However, Ives Goddard set me straight. In the last couple of weeks I�ve found a handful of �wood�-related terms in Miami-Illinois with the initial /mihs-/. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger � learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:30:09 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:30:09 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: rom: "David Costa" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 12:16 pm Funny, Michael and I just had a discussion about this last month. Ives Goddard showed a while ago that the reconstruction of Illinois /mihsooli/, Kickapoo /me0ooni/ 'boat', Menominee /mEhno:s/ 'raft' and Cree /mihtot/ 'raft' has to be Proto-Algonquian */meh0we0-/ ('0' = theta), where the */meh0-/ does indeed mean 'wood'. The Cree & Menominee cognates show that a */?0/ reconstruction is impossible. Miami /meehtikoo$ia/ 'Frenchman' is from an unrelated etymon, PA */me?tekwi/ 'tree'. MM: My gut feeling is that the eastern cognate of this term, in Montagnais, originally did not refer to the French as paddlers of dugout canoes�hell, **everybody** had dugout canoes! I feel it applied originally to the Montagnais experience of the novelty of wooden ships, that the French were �wood-ship-people�, not �dugout canoe people�. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:40:55 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:40:55 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: From: "David Costa" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Missouri Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2004, 8:36 am >And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. MM: Yes, it indeed means �birch bark�. This term is actually something I�ve known for a long time through Ojibwa, because of a childhood fascination with birch bark canoes, which to me were exquisite. So, I knew about this term many years before I saw the Illinois cognate in the Illinois-French (�Gravier�) dictionary. In Ojibwa its /wigwa:ss/ �birch bark and birch tree�. The Miami-Illinois term written <8ic8es> and <8ic8essi> by �Gravier� is /wiikweehsi/ �birch bark�. But yes, as Dave notes, the term is not in modern Miami. The only indirect mention I know of it is in Jacob Dunn�s recordings of the language where he gives the common term for �canoe� and then follows it with a statement to the effect �this is not a birchbark canoe�. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work � and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 15:45:10 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:45:10 -0600 Subject: Missouri, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael McCafferty wrote: > MM: I follow Lounsbury’s in dealing with native place names, and nothing > I read in the earlier descriptions of “Missouri” satisfied Lounsbury’s > requirements for **historical and linguistic accuracy**. Those are laudable and necessary guidelines for drawing etymological conclusions--too often honored in the breach, by me, too, I'm afraid--but adherence to them shouldn't discourage researchers from making hypotheses in laying the groundwork. It's been a long time since Geology 101, but I try to bear in mind Chamberlain's method of multiple working hypotheses. Alan H. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 17:16:17 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:16:17 -0800 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > while wic^ha does have that "definite object" > inflectional role, wic^ha and wa also act as a pair in the area of > "indefinite objects," with wic^ha covering the human cases, and wa the > rest. This is my impression too, although the semantic range of wa- also covers animals, and the question of whether wa- has to do with definiteness, or rather with specificity or referentiality, still needs detailed investigation, at least to me. > if, as I have always assumed, wic^ha is a Dakotan > innovation, replacing some uses of wa, then maybe this would account for > any residual exceptional uses of wa preserved lexically in Dakotan? This is the solution that would take care of the more exceptional and potentially troublesome cases of the use of wa- in LAkota, with respetc to both multiple wa- and animate wa-. For "inconvenient" appearances of multiple wa-, maybe together with seemingly coreferential full NPs, as in some of my earlier examples, we could argue then that at least one of the wa-s is fossilized in such a way that it has become part of the lexical root and has lost its individual meaning. > A question this immediately raises, is whether examples in texts or other > data suggest that the range of uses of wic^ha has been expanding > historically at the expense of wa? Is thi'wic^hakte - as a particular > example of wic^ha use - replacing thi'wakte in nominalizations or > indefinite object cases? If so, we'd probably expect wa in older examples > where today we find wic^ha. In other words, the general (and still hypothetical) picture is this: wicha- is intruding the domain of non-specific object coding as a specialized marker for non-specific animate object. At an earlier stage in the development of Lakota, non-specific object coding might have been "monopolized" by wa-, which means that the semantic range of wa- might must have covered both animate and inanimate non-specific objects back then. Today the animate usage of wa- is, by and large, obsolete, and merely survives in marginal forms such as w-okiye 'to help people'. In most contexts, non-specific animate objects are now coded by wicha-. I'd fully subscribe to this analysis -- I'd even like to take the argumentation one step further. Over the holidays, I took a close look at the wa-section in Buechel,and the results are quite interesting. So far, we have mainly discussed uses of wa- as a transitive object marker, but obviously, at least in the fixed lexical expressions I found in Buechel, wa- often occurs with intransitive bases as well in LAkota. Within these lexical expressions -- and that's the crucial point -- the frequency of unequivocally ANIMATE wa- is higher than I expected. Here are some examples (Constantine has just posted a much more complete list): wa-kaN-ka 'old woman' < kaN 'old', -ka 'kind of' wa-khaNyez^a 'child' < khaNyez^a 'child' wa-hu-topa 'quadruped' < hu 'leg', topa 'four' wa-hu-nuNpa 'biped' < hu 'leg', nuNpa 'two' wa-mni-tu 'large marine animal (such as whale, shark, octopus)' < mni 'water', -tu 'LOC' Maybe there is an alternative, but as far as I can tell at the moment, wa- in the above examples has to be analyzed as referring to the subject of the intransitive lexical roots in question. Such as: wa-hu-nuNpa 'biped' = 'two-legged thing/being, thing/being that is two-legged'. But if this analysis is correct, and we are dealing with established lexical items here, i.e. items that have been around for a pretty long time, such fossilized uses of wa- with animate reference could point to an earlier stage in the development of Lakota wa- in which this element was totally productive with animate reference. In the meantime, I have tried to elicit additional combinations of intransitive bases with wa-, both for animate and inanimate contexts, but the output is not very encouraging. I.e., intransitive wa- is not very productive these days. The question that has to be raised at this point is: is intransitive wa- too new to be productive or is it too old to be productive? There is some evidence that seems to support the second option. First, my speaker gave me the forms wa-luta 'ceremonial flag' < luta 'red' wa-suta 'seeded, like corn' < suta 'hard' and she feels that these are "old words". Further, the lexical items wa-ks^ica 'bowl' wa-h^pe 'leaf' are based on intransitive roots which appear to be obsolete today (at least they are not in Buechel), but they are phonetically and semantically akin to the following roots, which can be found in Buechel: ks^iz^a 'bent' and ks^iks^aN 'crooked', as well as h^payA 'to fall'. On this basis, wa-ks^ica 'bowl' could be analyzed as 'thing that is bowl-shaped' or so, and wa-h^pe 'leaf' could be analyzed (very tentatively of course) as 'thing that fell (off the tree)'. If the lexemes wa-ks^ica 'bowl' and wa-h^pe 'leaf' were created at a time when the now obsolete roots were still in use, the wa- that is part of the package has the same age. Remember that this type of wa- has intransitive reference. As I said above, in my data (the texts I collected, elicitation, plus Buechel, so far), animate readings of wa- appear mostly in the context of intransitive wa-. If there is something to this tendency of coupling animate wa- with intransitive wa-, then we can conclude, in keeping with John! 's and Bob's view, that animate wa- is of the same age as intransitive wa-, i.e. something that has been fragmentarily inherited from an earlier stage in the history of Lakota and survives exclusively (?) in fossilized forms. Q. E. D., or maybe not... We'd need much more (cross-Siouan?) evidence to fully substantiate this. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 17:18:25 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800 Subject: double inflection (Re: animate wa-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > We might find some "newer" pattern uses in > older materials, too, or at least this is the case in Omaha-Ponca for > other innovations: modern day uses tend to occur sporadically in earlier > materials, too. An example would be the modern practice of inflecting > daNbe 'to see' doubly as attaN'be 'I ...', dhas^taN'be 'you ...'. Mostly > Dorsey reports ttaN'be, s^taNbe, but a few speakers in his day were using > the "modern" forms. Double inflection of this type is extremely marginal in Lakota -- right now only one verb comes to my mind that behaves like the OP forms, i.e. iNyaNkA 'to run'. In the Boas/Deloria materials, and also in Buechel 1971, this verb is quoted as having wa-'iNmnaNkA for first person singular, which also is the standard Rosebud form today. My Rosebud speaker (about 80 years old) mentioned that Pine Ridge uses the (simplified, regularized) form wa-'iNyaNkA instead. My Pine Ridge speaker (about the same age) has confirmed this form, adding that in the 1930s, Pine Ridge had wa-'iNblaNkA for 'I run'. One way of dealing with this is by hypothesizing that Lakota has moved beyond an earlier (pan-Siouan??) stage of using double inflection with many verbs to a point where erstwhile doubly inflecting paradigms have been completely regularized by eliminating the irregular (or let's say, less regular) part of the inflection, i.e. -mn-/-bl- in the case of wa-'iNmnaNkA/wa-'iNblaNkA, retaining o! nly the canonical wa- '1SG.AG' marker. So that the Pine Ridge state of affairs represents the most innovative stage in the overall development. From my work on Osage on the basis of the LeFlesche materials I remember that this language has/had a lot of doubly inflecting verbs. I can't imagine that individual Siouan languages have "invented" double inflection independently from each other. OP double inflection patterns would then occupy the centerpiece of the cycle, while structures like OP ttaNb'e 'I see' would be the historical point of departure. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Jan 3 18:09:02 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:09:02 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hello all, I'd like to first introduce myself here in this illustrious circle of linguistic experts to which Mr. Koontz kindly has given me permission to tread in and lurk around in order to benefit from your knowledge. I'm not a linguist of profession myself but dealing with quite a couple of languages lifelong. Since about 20 years, I've been interested also in Lakota, with moderate success, though, because of hardly having had the materials necessary, then, and sufficient spare time left for this hobby. Since about one year, the problem of learning materials lacking meanwhile is solved, so I only will have to be patient with waiting still a few more years for really having also the time... So please allow me to partake as a moreorless silent reader and also to ask you questions now and then (and take this very opportunity here to test whether or not the posting to the list will work). Alfred A.W. Tüting http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de Hello, Kostya, interesting query on the use of _wicha_/_wa_! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From napshawin at msn.com Sat Jan 3 19:36:59 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:36:59 -0600 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' Message-ID: Iyopxeya-to trade or exchange goods or to sell something iyopxeya-to admonish another or to whip with words (exaggeration) wiyopxeye-to sell something not trade, but to sell to get money vs iyopxeye to exchange goods. supposedly, according to our grandparents most words had two or three meanings and we have to know how to use them, so when they sound the same we should be able to distinguish as above... hope that helps violet, miye >From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object' >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:26:44 -0000 > >While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the >fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and >wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a >coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? >Bruce > _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:12:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:12:49 -0700 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois > root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four segments. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:27:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:27:29 -0700 Subject: Missouri, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Michael McCafferty wrote: > >1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does > >anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? > > Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ > (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy > River'; compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', > and /pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy/ 'muddy river, Missouri river'. I should have pointed out that this is a calque (or vice versa) of Siouan names for the river, cf. OP niN s^ude (and so on in other Siouan languages) 'smoky (turbid) water'. > MM: The first recording of an Algonquian name for the Missouri River was > done on either June 25 or June 26, 1673, by Jacques Marquette during his > stopover at the Peoria village on the Des Moines River. We can see the > hydronym that the Peoria, a Miami-Illinois-speaking tribe, gave him on > his holograph map of the Mississippi. Marquette wrote (8 = > the sound /w/). ... From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 21:26:40 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:26:40 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: >>Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois >>root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. > > > Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four > segments. The English words wigwam (< Abenaki) and wickiup (< Fox) come from the root *wi:k- 'dwell, house', as perhaps do the Algonquian words for birchbark and basswood (Eng. wicopy). Alan H. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 21:50:18 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:50:18 -0800 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: Yeah, as Alan pointed out, the PA root */wi:k-/ 'dwell' is also present in PA */wi:kiwa:Hmi/ 'house, wigwam'. English 'wigwam' looks like the Abenaki reflex of that PA word, /wigwôm/. 'Wickiup' is the Kickapoo/Fox form of the same etymon, as in Fox /wi:kiya:pi/. 'Wetu', which is sometimes used in English to describe the houses the people of southern New England made, is also the same etymon, probably phonemic Massachusett /wity at w/ ('@' = schwa). It also appears in verbs, as in Miami /wiikici/, Menominee /we:kew/, and Cree /wi:kiw/ 'he dwells'. However, as a final and a dependent noun it's plain /-i:k-/, as in */ni:ki/ 'my lodge, my house', */ki:ki/ 'your lodge, your house'. Thanks for your patience with the non-Siouan digressions. :-) Dave >> Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois root >> <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. > Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four > segments. > JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:58:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:58:01 -0700 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: <3FF57FA4.19599.A64483@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the > fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and > wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a > coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? I'd be surprised if they weren't connected. If you think of selling (or buying) as bargaining, especially in a barter-system, then "product disparagement," alternating with some disparagement of the emptor (or anti-vendor), is the essence of thing. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:59:47 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:59:47 -0700 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: <3FF58083.3101.A9AC76@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Yes the use of wa- meaning 'around' could be the explanation of > wawinyanka 'womanizer= sleeping around'. ?........ Not seriously The only alternative seems to be 'he woman-lies for it (unspecified)'. JEK From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 21:59:34 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:59:34 -0800 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: >>> 1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does >>> anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? >> Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ >> (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy River'; >> compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', and >> /pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy/ 'muddy river, Missouri river'. > MM: The first recording of an Algonquian name for the Missouri River was done > on either June 25 or June 26, 1673, by Jacques Marquette during his stopover > at the Peoria village on the Des Moines River. We can see the hydronym that > the Peoria, a Miami-Illinois-speaking tribe, gave him on his holograph map of > the Mississippi. Marquette wrote (8 = the sound /w/). This is > Miami-Illinois /peekihtanwi/, a third-person inanimate intransitive conjunct > verb that has undergone initial change (/piik-/ > /peek-/ ). Yes, and also Gravier's Illinois 'eau borbeuse. Riviere Mis8ri'. Though one big problem with a Miami-Illinois /peekihtanwi/ is that it should NOT have undergone initial change, since it's an independent verb. It 'should' be */piikihtanwi/. Dave From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 22:03:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:03:25 -0700 Subject: Mandan re-redux In-Reply-To: <3FF58B2A.109@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > Koontz John E wrote: > > > The element here is *maNh-a 'earth, mud, muddy, miry', cf. Dakhota maNkha > > (maNh-ka) 'earth', OP maNa' 'bank', (s^u'de)maNha 'fog' (riverbank smoke), > > Ks maNha' 'land', Os niN'maNhaN 'marsh', IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', Wi > > maNaNha' 'mud, be muddy'. > > Any chance this is part of Mandan maNta 'Missouri River'? It doesn't seem impossible, given that "muddy" seems to be the basis of other names for the stream, but I'd have to (a) review what we said about this before and (b) see if there's anything plausible to account for -(Ca)ta(N). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 22:10:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:10:46 -0700 Subject: birch (was Missouri) In-Reply-To: <3FF60DF9.3010603@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > I think it means 'birchbark' in the Algonquian languages. Gravier gives > 8ic8essi 'canot d'ecorce, item ecorce de boul[e]au' ('bark-canoe, also > birchbark'), and 8ic8essimingi is thus best translated as 'birchbark > tree' rather than 'birch-tree tree'. The fact that Gravier glosses it as > 'bouleau arbre' ('birch-tree') doesn't mean that 8ic8essi means "plain > birch" in Illinois. > > An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya > 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- > 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. If Illinois 8ic8essi really meant > 'birch-tree', then -imingi would be redundant. In English trees that have some significant product have that product named, and then the tree is the "(product) tree," as in apple : apple tree, though, of course, you can also refer to the tree as an "apple" with "tree" omitted, just to complicate matters. The same thing seems to occur in Omaha-Ponca, where s^e 's 'apple', and the tree is s^ehi 'apple tree.' Similarly, corn vs. corn plant vs. corn (collective). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 02:32:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:32:19 -0700 Subject: Missouria, Grandmothers (Re: Historical questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The Omaha word for the Missouria given in Fletcher and > La Flesche is Niu'tachi, which they translate as > "those who came floating down dead". > > ni - 'water' > u- 'in' > t?e - 'dead', 'die' > > ni-u'-t?e - 'die in water', 'drown' > > I don't recognize /(a)chi/, but I gather that that's the > 'came floating down' part. Perhaps 'grandmother speech' > for athi', 'have arrived here' ? IO has regular affrication of dentals before front vowels, and the aspirates show up as voiced, so the cognate of OP thi(i) 'arrive here' (usually with a- prefixed in Dhegiha), from Proto-Siouan *thi, is j^i(i). There is also palatalization of n (to ny) in the same context. Because of the prevalence of V1V2 contractions to V2 - typical of MVS languages - you can find apparent exceptions to these rules, e.g., ut?aj^i (< iut?aj^i) or thiN (< tha(N)iN). In effect, all IO speakers use "grandmother speech." Of course, Francis LaFlesche, one of Dorsey's regular sources, actually had an Ioway grandmother, so there's a certain logic in this. I think, however, that we have enough instances of "grandmother speech" or "baby talk" from other sources that we can assert that this is coincidental. The basis of the "Ioway grandmother" observation is that Joseph LaFlesche's senior wife "Hinnuagsnun" 'The One Woman' (HiNnu 'eldest daughter' + ??? + snuN 'only' (?)), usually called Mary Gale, was part Ioway and her mother Nicomi (N(y)ihku is 'salt' and miN is 'woman', but this is a bald guess) actually was Ioway (with an Omaha mother). Francis's own mother was the second wife, "Ta-in-ne" (probably [MiN]TtaiNdhiN 'the (moving) visible (=new) [moon]') a/k/a Elizabeth Esau, an Omaha woman. I'm ignorant of how the kinship terminology works in polygynous marriages where the mothers aren't classificatory sisters, so I'm not positive, but I assume that the LaFlesche children could all call Nicomi grandmother. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Jan 4 02:45:23 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:45:23 -0600 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: >>4. Tabeau, probably writing around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a >>"rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says this is probably the >>Des >>Moines, . . . Could mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old >>(river of the) Maha? > > > MM: No. This is simply an English speaker’s attempt to write the French term > ‘riviere des moines’. * The etymology of Des Moines has long been disuputed, but the best bet is * from the new dictionary of Native American placenames that Bill Bright is * editing (with the questionable help of several of us on the list). To make sure it's clear here, my question wasn't about the 'River of the Mahas' being the origin of the name of the Des Moines river. I was asking about the Big Sioux. I'm looking at an English translation of Tabeau's French, and "rivierre des mohens" is a footnote's quote of the original French. The first mention of it in the text is: Another tribe of Yinctons now located on the River James, accustomed to the beaver hunt, who hunted them extensively on the branches of the River of the Mohens, also scoured the east bank of the Missouri and made only a very ordinary catch in 1803. The footnote to "River of the Mohens" reads: (35) rivierre des mohens in original. Probably the Des Moines, of which a variant was Riviere de Moyen. ... The Des Moines river is mentioned under that name elsewhere in the text, without commenting on the name, so I assume that Tabeau was using the term "rivierre des moines" in these instances. The "rivierre des mohens" is referred to several times, generally in conjunction with the James, the Missouri, and the Minnesota rivers. I've scanned over the numerous river names listed in the index, and have not found any of them that obviously refer to the Big Sioux, unless it is the rivierre des mohens. The French maps from the early 18th century do, I believe, refer to the Big Sioux as the R. des Mahas. I was wondering if Tabeau's "mohens" might not be a variant of earlier French "Mahas", and if the river he refers to as "rivierre des mohens" might not be referring to the Big Sioux rather than to the Des Moines. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 03:36:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:36:55 -0700 Subject: Ioway-Otoe-Missouria Dialects (Re: Historical questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > 5. How long have the Iowa and Oto been separate tribes? For a long time the Ioway have been identified with the Orr Focus of Oneota. This identification was made with the "direct historical" approach by the late Mildred Mott Wedel in a paper published in 1938 when she was still just Mildred Mott. For Oneota bibliography see http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/oneota/mar10.htm and http://www.uwlax.edu/mvac/PastCultures/Oneota/Continunitypg/contbibliography.htm. I think that the the original focuses of Oneota have been so thoroughly reworked in the last decade or so that it is risky to use the older focus names, but I believe Mott thought of Orr in terms of a limited set of sites in NE Iowa. More recently Clark Dobbs (dissertation, 1984) has suggested that the Correctionville-Blue Earth Phase might be Otoe. Unfortunately, CBE is like Orr in that it was originally conceived in terms of localized materials (actually two localities, Correctionville and the Blue Earth Valley), and then snowballed to include materials from all across the Midwest. I think that Orr and CBE are both ripe for reanalysis, and may have been divided up extensively since I last had some grasp of the literature on Oneota. The site of the Misouria settlement on the Missouri is well known and the archeology of that general area has been assigned to the Chariton River Group Continuity (Dale Henning 1970), if I recall the details correctly. This term was motivated by the circumstance that Oneota materials in this area are unusually mixed, or at least seemed to be given the state of analysis in 1970. The Little Osage were in the same area at the same time, of course, and we have numerous historical instances of multiethnic settlements in the Midwest. If these associations all have merit, then the Ioway, Otoe, and Missouria have been ethnically distinct for 700 years plus. Of course, there are scenarioes whereby this could be coupled with a degree of linguistic uniformity, but suspect that we simply are far from understanding how to connect the various attested "Chiwere" groups to their archeological roots. What does seem to be clear is that the three groups were quite distinct at contact, with no ethnohistorical reports that I am aware of regarding earlier unity, except those that refer to other Siouan groups, too. They're also rather widely distributed across Iowa/Missouri/Nebraska. > As I understand, the two languages are hardly more > than dialects of each other. The evidence on this has not yet been thoroughly assessed, unfortunately. Jimm Good Tracks knows more about it than anyone else. Almost all of the information collected on IOM a/k/a Chiwere, has been collected since the historical mergers of the three groups began, and most of that since the three were effectively a single community, which must have had some degree of leveling influence. Subject to that observation Chiwere is apparently less diverse than Dakotan or Dhegiha, but has much more internal variation than Winnebago. The main differences people have pointed out are lexical - including some male/female particles. Jimm has mentioned these. Particles, including male/female "modal" particles and conjunctions, often vary rather saliently between different dialects of Siouan languages. This is notably the case in Dakotan and Dhegiha. The well known Chiwere shift of s/s^/x to /s/x is a complicating factor. It's been going on since before contact, and is still not complete. It seems to crosscut the three communities, but may have proceded at different rates in each. > Some Omaha traditions > seem to hold that they were together with both of > them, and the Winnebago as well, when they were > living on the Big Sioux. When the Omaha moved west > to the mouth of the White River on the Missouri, the > Iowa and Oto were still with them, though the > Winnebago were no longer heard from. After moving > back down the Missouri to northeastern Nebraska, the > Iowa were still near the Omaha, living at Aowa Creek > while the Omaha were at Bow Creek. But the Oto were > already living down by Omaha (city) and the lower > Platte by 1718 (according to a French map), and joined > with the Pawnee in the massacre of the Villasur > expedition in 1720. The Iowa moved down to join the > Oto on the other side of the Missouri at Council Bluffs > sometime prior to 1758, when the French Governor > Kerlerec described the tribes of the Missouri. They > later moved east to the mouth of the Des Moines > between 1765 and 1768 at the invitation of the traders > of St. Louis to meet them there. How does this all > compare to the Iowa and Oto traditions of their early > history? And how about the Winnebago? Is there any > reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi > prior to 1700? I think the various folk accounts of the early Dhegiha movements, sometimes grafted onto other stories to produce general accounts of MVS history (sans the Dakota) are simply myth making based on mixtures of linguistic and place name analysis. I think most elements in the stories emerged in the 1800s. Apart from that I've noticed that Ioway ethnohistory of their movements accords rather well with early historical accounts, though there's a tendency to consider the ethnohistory to refer to a much greater time depth. Over the same period the Otoe and Missouria were more or less immobile, barring the Missouria's misfortunes and their fusion with the Otoe. The Winnebago seem to be in Wisconsin from contact until the US began its efforts to move them west, efforts notoriously only partially successful. It does seem clear that the Omaha and Ponca split from a single entity, perhaps even within the period of nominal contact, and that the Omaha(-Ponca?) moved into Nebraska from NW Iowa within that period, in other words, just before 1700 or so. I'm sorry if these remarks are so fuzzy as to be useless! Not all of the fuzziness comes from mostly putting them together from memory. The archaeologists and ethnohistorians are fairly confused and uncertain themselves. I certainly recommend pouring over the Northeastern and Plains volumes of HNAI. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 04:44:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:44:29 -0700 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: <009201c3d1c2$064fa790$cc430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > In this sampling of names above (there are more), the only non-Ioway/ > Otoe rendering is in the word "xaN'she" (big; great). NOTE: Ioway: > xaN'nye ~ xaNn~e; Otoe: xaN'je. I have rendered the word as given by > Dorsey, i.e., xaN'she; however, I have since wondered if it is correct. > Some of Dorsey's IOM narrative transcriptions use the letter "s" to > denote theta sound, as in: thi (foot) would be written as "si". Then > he proceeds to write the phoneme "s" as "sh" and does not seem to note > instances of the phoneme "sh". He also neglects other features, such as > glottal stops, etc. My question now is if the the word for Missouria > "big; great" is indeed: xaN'she (OR) xaN'se? I suspect that if Dorsey wrote s and s^ where we expect theta and s, it's because the speakers he dealt with still used something he considered to be s and s^. Since modern theta and s come from earlier s and s^, respectively, might we not expect some variations like this in the past? Of course, I see in the 'sand' term (see below) that at least some of these s^ forms are where we expect historical s (or z). > We tha a Missourie > Hospatallity This is the wethea ~ withia form mentioned. Behind a name glossed "Hospitality" (Amen on L&C's spelling, Jimm) I'd expect some meaning like 'he spares them', i.e., 'he spares a visiting foreigner's life by feeding him, making him a sponsored guest immune to mistreatment'. The attested form for this in IO is uda=hi (a causative). I don't see how that would work. One possible OP version of this, however, is dha?e=dhe (a causative) 'to pity'. The noun is wadha?e=dhe 'pity'. I wonder if perhaps the translator - and I know some of them were Omahas - didn't substitute the Omaha form of the word for the original. Or maybe the Missouria speaker was speaking in Omaha anyway? This is a uniquely Omaha-Ponca form, as the Osage is dhak?e=dhe and the underlying k? or x? would also survive in IOM. In fact, if "a a" is V?V, this form has to be Omaha-Ponca, which is the main Siouan language with a really obtrusive intervocalic glottal stop (from *k? and *x?) As Jimm observes, ia is not a very likely final sequence in Siouan languages. > Au-ho-ning ga M Presumably ahuniNge 'he lacks a wing'? > Au-ho-ne-ga Miss. Idem! > I am not familiar with the above term. Pawnee in IOM is: PaNYi; Arickara/ > Aricakaree is: PaNyi Busa ~ Butha (Sand Pawnee: I haven't a clue for > the term). OP normally has ppa(a)dhiN ppi(i)za 'sand Caddoan' for the Arikara. Any ppa(a)dhiN (u)maNhaN in this context would be descriptive, though I seem to recall somebody somewhere suggesting a particular connection of the Skiri and the Arikara. We recently commented on the near homophony of bi(i)'ze 'dry' and ppi(i)'za 'sand'. In both words the i is from *u. IOM has budhe ~ busa (older, because s for dh, and a-ablaut) 'dry' and busa ~ butha (Dorsey pusha) 'sand'. Based on the Dhegiha forms I'd expect budhe (earlier buze) and *phudhe (earlier phuz^e). Since we have b in most of the IOM 'sand' forms, I suspect interference from 'dry'. IOM source spelling may have bdj^g and/or ptc^k for the unaspirated stops, but it only has ptc^k (and/or ph th c^h kh) for the aspirates, not bdj^g. Here I mean "contemporary aspirates." Confusingly, the "historical" aspirates of Proto-Siouan (*ph, *th, *kh) become b d ~ j^ and g in IOM. 'Sand' has *hp, no *ph. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 05:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:58:37 -0700 Subject: double inflection (Re: animate wa-) In-Reply-To: <20040103171825.67864.qmail@web40002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > Double inflection of this type is extremely marginal in Lakota -- right > now only one verb comes to my mind that behaves like the OP forms, i.e. > iNyaNkA 'to run'. In the Boas/Deloria materials, and also in Buechel > 1971, this verb is quoted as having wa-'iNmnaNkA for first person > singular, which also is the standard Rosebud form today. My Rosebud > speaker (about 80 years old) mentioned that Pine Ridge uses the > (simplified, regularized) form wa-'iNyaNkA instead. My Pine Ridge > speaker (about the same age) has confirmed this form, adding that in the > 1930s, Pine Ridge had wa-'iNblaNkA for 'I run'. There are essentially two kinds of double inflection in Siouan languages. One (1) occurs when multiple elements of a stem are inflected, which is the case with Dakotan i=yaNka in its full conservative glory. Another example of this type is (or was) hiyu, which is in Buechel as wahibu, yahilu, (hiyu). I think I've seen it given as wahiyu, yahiyu, hiyu in modern, or at least Pine Ridge form. Riggs gives wahibu ~ hibu and yahidu ~ hidu, showing an alternative pattern of simplification. I apologize if I managed to day that such formations are frequent. I only meant to say that they occur sporadically - perhaps enough to provide an example. Dhegiha languages abound (relatively) in double inflections of this first sort, some lexical, e.g., OP gaN=dha 'to want' (kkaN'=bdha A1, s^kaN'=(s^)na A2, gaN'=dha=i A3, aNgaN=dha=i A12) and others grammatical, e.g., =xti added to another verb requires the following supporting auxiliary =maN 'I really ...', =z^aN 'you really ...'. There are also a lot of compound motion verbs (comparable to hiyu) that are inflected on both elements. The other kind of double inflection (2.1) occurs when two pronominals, usually regular + irregular, occur in sequence on a single stem, as in OP a-t-taNbe 'I see it', etc., or Osage a-p-paN 'I call', dha-s^-paN 'you call', etc. This last is cited in LaFlesche, but I believe Carolyn told me it is singly inflected regular today (a-paN, dha-paN, ...). This pattern is much more sporadic in Siouan than the "two elements separately inflected" pattern, but does occur sporadically. IOM has a lot of it with r-stems, I believe, to the extent where it is almost the regular pattern: ha-da- A1, ra-s-ra- A2, ra- A3, and so on. A second varient (2.2) on this second kind of double inflection occurs when the portmanteau for A1P2 is used regularly with the irregular (or syncopating) A1 form, as in OP wi-b-dha- A1P2-A1-by_mouth. Lakota does this with c^hi, e.g., c^hi-b-la-, right? In this case the context is paradigmatically very limited, but also very common in terms of lexical frequency. A third version (2.3) of this occurs with datives and suus forms of syncopating verbs in OP, where you can get sequences in which both the dative prefix and the underlying stem are inflected, if the underlying stem is syncopating: eppaghe < a-(g)i-p-gaghe 'I made it for him' A1-DAT-A1-make, etc.; agippaghe < a-gi-p-gaghe 'I made it for myself' A1-SUUS-A1-make, etc. > One way of dealing with this is by hypothesizing that Lakota has moved > beyond an earlier (pan-Siouan??) stage of using double inflection with > many verbs to a point where erstwhile doubly inflecting paradigms have > been completely regularized by eliminating the irregular (or let's say, > less regular) part of the inflection, i.e. -mn-/-bl- in the case of > wa-'iNmnaNkA/wa-'iNblaNkA, retaining only the canonical wa- '1SG.AG' > marker. Which is essentially what has happened with Osage paN, and I'd argue that double inflection in OP daNbe and Os paN is a sort of route to regularization - first bury the irregularity and then forget it. And the two inflected pieces can work the same way, as these Lakota data show, though presumably here the double inflection is original. > ... I can't imagine that individual Siouan languages have "invented" > double inflection independently from each other. OP double inflection > patterns would then occupy the centerpiece of the cycle, while > structures like OP ttaNb'e 'I see' would be the historical point of > departure. I agree with this in general terms, but I think that particular cases of double inflection of the first type are continually recreated via different sorts of serial verb construction. The system that creates the forms is inherited, but the particular examples aren't always. Still, hi=yu matches a pattern of motion verb compound that OP has, though it seems not to have the corresponding *thi=(dh)i, but only thi=dha and thi=dhadha, matching hi=yaya (which can only occur reduplicated). (I believe hi=yaya is still doubly, actually triply, inflected in modern Lakota, right?) The second sort of pattern (or at least 2.1) comes about entirely secondarily, as a kind of regularization. Versions 2.2 and 2.3 are a bit harder to characterize. We might call them something like overgeneralization. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 08:17:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:17:31 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <20040103171617.33249.qmail@web40003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > This is my impression too, although the semantic range of wa- also > covers animals, and the question of whether wa- has to do with > definiteness, or rather with specificity or referentiality, still needs > detailed investigation, at least to me. After making my suggestion on the distribution of wa and wic^ha in "nonspecific object" use in order to ask Regina if this was what she was suggesting I rediscovered the place where Regina had earlier said as much. I think that Linda was saying she found things to be essentially similar in Assiniboine, though there were also problematic examples with wa where one might expect wic^ha. I agree that the issue of whether wic^ha ~ wa in these contexts indicates indefiniteness or nonreferentiality or nonspecificity or object deletion is one that remains to be resolved, though nonspecificity looks like the best bet to me. The answer might depend on the speech community in question. > In other words, the general (and still hypothetical) picture is this: > wicha- is intruding the domain of non-specific object coding as a > specialized marker for non-specific animate object. At an earlier stage > in the development of Lakota, non-specific object coding might have been > "monopolized" by wa-, which means that the semantic range of wa- might > must have covered both animate and inanimate non-specific objects back > then. Today the animate usage of wa- is, by and large, obsolete, and > merely survives in marginal forms such as w-okiye 'to help people'. In > most contexts, non-specific animate objects are now coded by wicha-. I'd > fully subscribe to this analysis -- I'd even like to take the > argumentation one step further. In effect, animate third person plural objects in transitive paradigms are a special case of non-specific object in MVS languages - non-specific objects used to code animate specific plural objects - and these were evidently among the original wa forms to be replaced by wic^ha-forms in Dakotan. Historical dicitonary data also show lexicalized cases of wic^ha where an animate non-specific object is meant, along with more numerous cases of wa in the same capacity. Contemporary Lakota speakers seem to prefer wic^ha in this capacity in productive verbal uses. We're not sure how long that's been going on. (Obviously, texts might clarify this within the last 100 years or so.) Contemporary speakers still have at least some older forms, presumably lexicalized, in which wa occurs for a non-specific animate reference. I'll bet there aren't actually many cases where a form listed in Riggs or Buechel with animate non-specific wa now substitutes wic^ha. Constantine's query re. wawiyuNg^api 'inquiry' vs. wiwic^hayuNg^api 'questions' may be an example, though, of course, this is actually listed in Buechel. There might be also be cases in which a new form using wic^ha with one stem replaces an old form with a different stem that uses wa. > Over the holidays, I took a close look at the wa-section in Buechel, and > the results are quite interesting. So far, we have mainly discussed uses > of wa- as a transitive object marker, but obviously, at least in the > fixed lexical expressions I found in Buechel, wa- often occurs with > intransitive bases as well in LAkota. Within these lexical expressions > -- and that's the crucial point -- the frequency of unequivocally > ANIMATE wa- is higher than I expected. Here are some examples > (Constantine has just posted a much more complete list): > > wa-kaN-ka 'old woman' < kaN 'old', -ka 'kind of' > ... This is more or less in line with wic^ha not occurring as the third person plural marker with statives, isn't it? Of course, once wic^ha occurs as an animate non-specific object it might occur more generally as an animate non-specific patient. Forms like wic^ha'xwa 'drowsiness' (maxwa' 'I am drowsy') (cited by Constantine) seem to be of that nature. > Maybe there is an alternative, but as far as I can tell at the moment, > wa- in the above examples has to be analyzed as referring to the subject > of the intransitive lexical roots in question. ... if this analysis is > correct, and we are dealing with established lexical items here, i.e. > items that have been around for a pretty long time, such fossilized uses > of wa- with animate reference could point to an earlier stage in the > development of Lakota wa- in which this element was totally productive > with animate reference. I'd agree with this. Moreover, such wa + stative forms occur in other Siouan languages as well. They might be parallel evolution, but I doubt it. Examples, OP wasa'be 'black bear' = 'the one that is black', Wi wakhaN 'snake' = (?) 'the one that is mysterious', etc. It is true that these forms aren't especially numerous in Wi, where the general preference seems to be waz^aN 'something' + stative, e.g., waz^aNzi 'lemon, orange'. Or the examples in Wi add -ge (analogous to -ka in wakaNka 'old woman'), e.g., waxoxge 'cowrie shell', waj^uNsge 'crayfish'. On the other hand, wa + stative i still reasonably productive in OP, e.g. waz^i'de 'tomato ketchup' < z^i'de 'red'. I notice that wa is often used with nouns as a sort of indefinite possessor or whole-namer (as in part of whole), e.g., OP wathaNzi 'cornstalk', wathaN 'squash', wahaba 'corn ear', wamide 'seed', wamuske 'bread', waxiNha 'cloth', wahi 'leg', was^iN 'fat', wamiN 'blood', wanaNghe 'ghost'. (In Wi wic^aNwas 'corn(plant)', wic^aNwaN 'squash', waha 'fur', wahiNsaN 'down feathers', waniN 'meat', wakere 'faeces', waroic^ 'intestines'.) These are like the possessor cases of wic^ha that Constantine left out for consistancy, though he left some in, I think, e.g., wic^haatkuku, wic^hahuNkake, wic^hac^hepa, ... These are analogous to the well known cases of animal body-part possession compounds (cf. Boas & Deloria 1941:70, e.g., wic^hachaNte 'human heart', thaphi 'ruminant liver', etc., which, of course, have their analogs in OP, e.g., ttez^ega 'buffalo thigh', ttenaNde 'buffalo heart', etc. > In the meantime, I have tried to elicit additional combinations of > intransitive bases with wa-, both for animate and inanimate contexts, > but the output is not very encouraging. I.e., intransitive wa- is not > very productive these days. ... > As I said above, in my data (the texts I collected, elicitation, plus > Buechel, so far), animate readings of wa- appear mostly in the context > of intransitive wa-. If there is something to this tendency of coupling > animate wa- with intransitive wa-, then we can conclude, in keeping with > John's and Bob's view, that animate wa- is of the same age as > intransitive wa-, i.e. something that has been fragmentarily inherited > from an earlier stage in the history of Lakota and survives exclusively > (?) in fossilized forms. Actually, that seems like a reasonably good argument, though I'm not sure if it's true that the majority of animate non-specific wa's occur with stative stems, based on the examples Constantine offered. It may well be that the majority of instances of derivations in wa from stative stems are animate. In any event, the number of stems doesn't seem to be important to the argument, but only that this relict set contains such examples. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sun Jan 4 12:13:41 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:13:41 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry to use the List as a location agency, but is Willem DeReuse out there or does any one know his email address. I did not find the University of North Texas web site easy to use. Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sun Jan 4 12:16:19 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:16:19 -0000 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks all for the replies on postpositions Bruce From arem8 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 16:12:11 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:12:11 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: Please forgive me, but for the sake of linguistic accuracy I would like to invade the Siouan list once more and note that Ojibwa "birch bark" is actually /wi:gwa:ss/, not */wigwa:ss/, as I noted yesterday. Thanks for your patience, Michael _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx From arem8 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 16:15:39 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:15:39 -0500 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: noop. thoughts what i used to think as a kid, though. i wasn't going to drag this out on the siouan list, and also i know if i drag it out in front of dave, his first reaction (and therefore siouan list reaction) will be dismissive, but I *think* these terms have to do with the idea of enveloping. There are several entries in "Gravier" that have a similar shape. >From: Koontz John E >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Missouri >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:12:49 -0700 (MST) > >On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > > Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois > > root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. > >Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four >segments. > > >JEK _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work � and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From arem8 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 16:39:05 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:39:05 -0500 Subject: birch (was Missouri) Message-ID: >From: Koontz John E >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: Siouan List >Subject: Re: birch (was Missouri) >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:10:46 -0700 (MST) > >On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > > I think it means 'birchbark' in the Algonquian languages. Gravier gives > > 8ic8essi 'canot d'ecorce, item ecorce de boul[e]au' ('bark-canoe, also > > birchbark'), and 8ic8essimingi is thus best translated as 'birchbark > > tree' rather than 'birch-tree tree'. The fact that Gravier glosses it as > > 'bouleau arbre' ('birch-tree') doesn't mean that 8ic8essi means "plain > > birch" in Illinois. > > > > An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya > > 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- > > 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. If Illinois 8ic8essi really meant > > 'birch-tree', then -imingi would be redundant. > >In English trees that have some significant product have that product >named, and then the tree is the "(product) tree," as in apple : apple >tree, though, of course, you can also refer to the tree as an "apple" with >"tree" omitted, just to complicate matters. The same thing seems to occur >in Omaha-Ponca, where s^e 's 'apple', and the tree is s^ehi 'apple tree.' >Similarly, corn vs. corn plant vs. corn (collective). >JEK I agree with John that that is what is happening in Illinois, that the term for "birch bark" is being extended to mean the name for the tree, and that there is an additional term for paper birch tree in Illinois (noted above). What draws me to this conclusion is that the tree's name is reconstructible in Proto-Algonquian: */wi:kwe:hsa:htekwa/, and that is composed of the reconstructed term for birch bark, *wi:kwe:hs-/ and /-a:htekwa/ 'tree'. I might add that as a curiosity, there are some names of trees in Miami-Illinois that contain two morphemes for "tree," such as /ahsenami$aahkwi/, one of three terms in the language for "maple tree," which is literally "stone-tree-tree". Michael _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sun Jan 4 17:38:48 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 09:38:48 -0800 Subject: tree tree Message-ID: Since we're still on Algonquian digressions... My favorite oddball tree name in Miami-Illinois would have to be /mihtekami$i/, which is the generic word for 'oak'. Those of you who've been reading these emails closely might have already noticed that this word literally means 'tree tree': /mihtek(w)-/ is the M-I reflex of the PA word for 'tree', and /-(e)mi$i/ is that 'tree' final again. (Only Fox/Kickapoo has a cognate: Fox /mehtekomi$i/ 'white oak'.) However, the reason for this is pretty clear, if you look around: the Miami-Illinois word for 'acorn' is /mihtekamini/, which is literally 'tree berry'. (This term is MUCH more widely attested across Algonquian.) There seems to be a morphological process whereby any term with /-mini/ 'berry, nut' can form its corresponding tree name by replacing /-mini/ with /-mi$i/ 'tree'. Thus, the 'oak' word seems to be backformed from the 'acorn' word, only incidentally producing a word that makes no sense synchronically. So in some abstract sense /mihtekami$i/ really means 'acorn tree', even tho the 'acorn' word isn't in it. David > I might add that as a curiosity, there are some names of trees in Miami- > Illinois that contain two morphemes for "tree," such as /ahsenami$aahkwi/, one > of three terms in the language for "maple tree," which is literally > "stone-tree-tree". From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Jan 4 17:48:03 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:48:03 -0600 Subject: tree tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: > My favorite oddball tree name in Miami-Illinois would have to be > /mihtekami$i/, which is the generic word for 'oak'. Those of you who've been > reading these emails closely might have already noticed that this word > literally means 'tree tree': /mihtek(w)-/ is the M-I reflex of the PA word > for 'tree', and /-(e)mi$i/ is that 'tree' final again. (Only Fox/Kickapoo > has a cognate: Fox /mehtekomi$i/ 'white oak'.) There's also Ojibway mittikomi^z 'oak'. Alan H. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jan 4 18:15:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:15:10 -0600 Subject: Wa-/Wicha history. Message-ID: I'm afraid a comparative perspective on the wa- vs. wicha- problem doesn't provide as much useful information as one might wish. The problem is that wicha- exists only in the Dakotan subgroup, but it seems to be found throughout Dakotan. This means that it's history is difficult to trace within Dakotan and impossible to trace outside it. It is probably realistic to reconstruct *wa- within Mississippi Valley Siouan at the very least. But its precise semantics/function would need to be determined by a careful grammatical comparison of Dhegiha (which John has pretty much covered already), Chiwere, Hocank/Winnebago, etc. The implication seems to be that, wherever you find wicha- used today in the Dakotan verb complex, you may have had wa- at an earlier time. This may not be 100% so, but as a working hypothesis, it's a start. To the extent that it is true, wicha- can be said to have replaced wa- first in human and then animate contexts, i.e., wicha- (always??) spreads at the expense of wa-. We would then expect to be able to seriate the derivational vocabulary to a certain extent (e.g., Konstantin's nice listing). Older derivations would be expected to show wa- where, today, we might expect wicha-. Broadly, derivations with pan-MVS cognates should have (or have had) wa-. Those without cognates outside of Dakotan should have the wa/wicha split. I believe John said something about like this in a recent posting. More recent derivations should yield wicha-, not wa-, in animate contexts. But, of course, older constructs in wa- may have been reanalyzed with wicha- analogically. We would not generally expect replacement of wicha- with wa-, however. Replacement should be one-way. Since grammar change, as opposed to sound change, is lexically gradual (analogical), we might expect (1) that different Dakotan dialects will show different distributions of wicha- vs. wa- (this is where Linda's Assiniboine may come in handy, also Stoney, as well as the better-attested dialects), (2) that different generations of Dakotan speakers may show different distributions of wicha/wa, so that, (3), using these distributional differences, we may be able to trace the categorial spread of wicha- within Dakotan. This is all very common-sensical, so I apologize for its obviousness. Anyway, that's the perspective of a comparativist. Now all that is needed is somebody to do all the related work!! A great doctoral dissertation topic. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Jan 4 23:00:19 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:00:19 -0600 Subject: Missouria names Message-ID: Thanks to Bob, Jimm and John for their comments on Missouria names. I've found a nice source for several more. It seems that Oklahoma State maintains an on-line list with the full text of all the treaties made by the U.S. Government with various Indian tribes up to the late 1800's. They are ordered by date, and the URL to the index listing can be found at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/tocy1.htm There seem to be a few errors in the text. Notably, the Omaha (Mahah) are to be found as the Makah for the treaties of 1815 and 1825, and Manuel Lisa comes out as Manuel Liea in the 1817 treaty with the Ponca. Hence there is probably some room for doubt about the accuracy of the transcription of some of the names of Indians signatory to the treaties. In the 1830 treaty reserving western Iowa and northwestern Missouri as a common hunting ground for several Indian tribes, the Missourias are: Eh-shaw-manie, or the one who walks laughing Ohaw-tchee-ke-sakay, one who strikes the Little Osages Wamshe-katou-nat, the great man Shoug-resh-kay, the horse fly Tahmegrai-Soo-igne, little deer's dung In the 1836 treaty backpedaling on the 1830 treaty so as to evict all Indians from northwestern Missouri, the Missouria names are: Hah-che-ge-suga Black Hawk No Heart Wan-ge-ge-he-ru-ga-ror The Arrow Fender Wah-ne-min-er Big Wing And in the 1854 treaty in which the Oto-Missouria gave up their claims in most of Nebraska to move down to their southeastern Nebraska-northeastern Kansas reservation, the Missouria names are: Ah-hah-che-ke-saw-ke, Missouria Chief Maw-thra-ti-ne, White Water Eh-shaw-manie, or the one who walks laughing, should probably be Is^a-mani, corresponding to OP i'h^a-moN'dhiN. Is^a - laugh; mani - walk. The velar fricative in 'laugh' seems to have been palatalized. Tahmegrai-Soo-igne, little deer's dung, should probably be Ta-migre-su-igne. Ta - deer; igne - dung; migre or migresu - little(?); su - possessive(?). Beyond those two, I'm stumped. Can anyone else make sense of them? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Jan 5 03:09:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:09:13 -0600 Subject: More regarding "wa" Message-ID: John wrote: > My gut feeling is the opposite, of course, though I really haven't > presented any general line of evidence in favor of it. However, at a > minimum I feel it simplifies matters to have a single wa behaving in a > consistent way in several different contexts, rather than one indefinite > patient wa and one nominalization/head-marking wa, with overlapping but > different patterns of agreement. In OP, the patient wa- refers to (I think only animate) 'them', in about the same distribution as Dakotan wicha-. It also refers to 'us', which I think in Dakotan is handled with the same uN(k)- that is used for 'we'. The latter has a quirk in that awa-, rather than wa-, is used for 'us' in the causatives. In Dakotan, wa- is not used as an animate patient affixed pronoun in either 'them' or 'us' cases. Is this all correct? What is the career of the animate patient affixed pronoun use of wa- ? Is it general in Dhegihan, Chiwere and Winnebago, in both 'them' and 'us' usages? Is it possible that it has been spreading into these contexts in the same way as we suppose Dakotan wicha did? > At the moment I'm inclined to see wa prefixes in verbs as indefinite (or, > really, non-specific) patients, and in some languages as third person > plural object inflections (in OP not 3p subject inflections, even in > statives). Judging from the Dakotan examples given recently, I'd like to propose an alternative hypothesis that wa- was originally not a noun marker at all, but that it acted to generalize the action of the verb. I would be interested in seeing a comparison between Dakotan verbs starting with wa-, and the same verbs without the wa-. My prediction is that where both versions exist and are transparently related to each other, the form without the wa- should imply a specific action, and the form with the wa- should imply that the action is normative. I would expect this rule to be standard in MVS and at least well fossilized in Dakotan. Second, I would propose that generalized verbs were favored as noun constructions. If you are making up a noun as a verb derivative, the entity is usually being described in terms of what it does normally, not by what it just does once. Hence, we get many verb-derived nouns beginning with wa-. This also should be normal and productive in MVS. Third, as time passes and MVS splits into its daughter languages, new forms develop to indicate normative or habitual action, and wa- ceases to be used productively as a normativizer in the non-Dakotan languages. In ancestral OP at least, the loss of the original wa- rule forces a reinterpretation of wa- in both the noun and verb contexts. In the noun context, wa- is now understood as a head-marker for an entity normatively characterized by the action of the verb. The verb itself can be either active or stative; it doesn't matter, because in its role in forming a noun characterized by its normative action, it is always effectively stative in function, regardless of which way the action goes. In this context, it is always a descriptor. This semantic reinterpretation of wa- should be able to take place without immediate alteration of any preceding rules of syntax. Meanwhile, the wa- on the verb side is also reinterpreted from normative or habitual or repeated action, to imply multiple objects acted upon. Since the ancestral language perhaps had no patient pronouns for 'us' and 'them', wa- was then readapted to fill these slots. Finally, in the case of the Dakotan wa-wa- situations, I would suggest that instead of functioning to cancel multiple patient slots as we've been assuming, perhaps all that is going on here is reduplication of a generalizer. What's happening is that the generalization is being squared through all dimensions of possible variance. Wa-wa-speak would mean to speak repeatedly in all possible conversations with all possible people. House wa-wa-paint would mean to paint the house at various possible times in various possible places in various possible colors. John, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've been pondering them for the last few days. The above hypothesis is the current result. Feel free to shoot it down, or to expand on your own views about wa- as primordial patient marker! Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: More regarding "wa" owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/01/2004 12:10 AM Please respond to siouan At the moment I'm inclined to see wa prefixes in verbs as indefinite (or, really, non-specific) patients, and in some languages as third person plural object inflections (in OP not 3p subject inflections, even in statives). In nominalizations I think they play the same role(s), and are not subject references unless the subject is encoded as a patient. I'm arguing this in terms of Omaha-Ponca, but I think that similar arguments apply in other Siouan languages, modulo the wa vs. wic^ha complexity in Dakotan. I'll take advantage of Rory's examples to play the devil's advocate, as I think his analysis of wa as the subject marker in nominalizations is essentially different, and requires that wa in nominalizations be regarded as having a different pattern of functioning than wa in unnominalized verbs. Again, I have not yet done any examination of standard grammars to verify this, but I think his approach is not without its advocates. In essence in his analysis wa is the reference to the head of the nominalization, or it might be considered to be just the mark of nominalization, since it doesn't contrast with another marker of nominalization. Rory already draws the necessary distinctions, so I'm just running through his arguments in reverse, so to speak. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John are discussing has > perplexed me too, particularly in parsing names for tools and other > technical terms. In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might > refer to the subject as well as to objects. What I had in mind was this > apparent use of wa- as a nominalizer: > > wa-sabe = 'the one that is black' > wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark' > ... I agree that wa here is a reference to the subject, but also to the patient, as the underlying stems here are stative. > These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if active verbs can be used > in the same way: > > wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals' Here I think the form is essentially 3pInd-(A3)-heals 'he heals them', i.e., that wa refers to the ones healed (indefinite or actually nonspecific third person patients), not to the healer (a specific, if indefinite reference). > And then there is the whole suite of implement terms that are built on > the framework of > > [NOM]-i-VERB > > where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that VERB is enacted by > means of something. Usually, if a noun sits in front: > > NOUN-i-VERB > > then the noun is the object of the verb's action. Rarely, however, it > seems that the noun can be the head of the derived noun phrase, and > implies that the noun is used to perform the verbal action, rather than > that it is the object of the verbal action. I only have one example at > the moment, and it's not as clear as I would like. > > moNzezi-i-gattushi > brass -i- explode > 'the brass thing that is used to explode' > = 'gun cap' > > As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal -i- exists; it might > just be I'd agree that it could be there, "hidden," and missed in transcription. > moNzezi-gattushi > 'exploding brass' Another possibility here is that in this case ga functions to form a stative of the sort invariably formed by the outer instrumental na= 'by heat'. In essence the inner instrumental ga- here is an oblique reference 'with violence' and the (patient) subject is governed by the underlying stem ttus^i. The clause structure is similar to maN'ze na'= z^ide iron with heat red "red hot poker" > Assuming that such constructions do exist, however, > I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i- > nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and > means 'that which is used to enact VERB'. I'd argue that as constructions like NOUN(instrument) i-VERB are admittedly more the norm it would be more likely that wa was standing in for an unspecified instrumental noun, though if nouns in other capacities can occur we might want to admit that wa might also stand in those capacities, too. Whether we might want to allow wa to occur with agents "bronze that causes an explosion" depends on a number of factors, of course - whether this is the same wa that marks indefinite patients or not, and whether we're really convinced that that wa is itself restricted to patients. > In fact, we can find up to three variants of the > same i-VERB nominalization. > > NOUN-i-VERB > moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube > coffee -i- grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > Here, 'coffee' is an object noun. > > i-VERB > i-dhittube > i-grind > 'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder' > > Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-: > > wa-i-VERB > wedhittube > wa-i-grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > But does this last construction mean > > 'thing used to grind (things)' > > or > > '(thing) used to grind things' ? > > My gut feeling favors the first interpretation, and I think our speakers > have also favored that, but it is really hard to find words that clearly > distinguish the matter. My gut feeling is the opposite, of course, though I really haven't presented any general line of evidence in favor of it. However, at a minimum I feel it simplifies matters to have a single wa behaving in a consistent way in several different contexts, rather than one indefinite patient wa and one nominalization/head-marking wa, with overlapping but different patterns of agreement. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 03:18:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:18:38 -0700 Subject: tree tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > However, the reason for this is pretty clear, if you look around: the > Miami-Illinois word for 'acorn' is /mihtekamini/, which is literally 'tree > berry'. (This term is MUCH more widely attested across Algonquian.) There > seems to be a morphological process whereby any term with /-mini/ 'berry, > nut' can form its corresponding tree name by replacing /-mini/ with /-mi$i/ > 'tree'. Thus, the 'oak' word seems to be backformed from the 'acorn' word, > only incidentally producing a word that makes no sense synchronically. So in > some abstract sense /mihtekami$i/ really means 'acorn tree', even tho the > 'acorn' word isn't in it. Apart, perhaps, from the widespread cognacy of 'acorn' in the form 'tree berry' couldn't you argue that 'oak' had become the unmarked kind of 'tree'? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 04:45:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:45:31 -0700 Subject: Little Acorns and Great Oaks (Re: tree tree) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > My favorite oddball tree name in Miami-Illinois would have to be > /mihtekami$i/, which is the generic word for 'oak'. Those of you who've been > reading these emails closely might have already noticed that this word > literally means 'tree tree': /mihtek(w)-/ is the M-I reflex of the PA word > for 'tree', and /-(e)mi$i/ is that 'tree' final again. For what it's worth, the analog of this in, say, Omaha-Ponca, as an example of Siouan patterns, is that 'oak' is the 'acorn tree' with hi 'stem, tree', e.g., tta(a)'s^ka hi 'burr oak', buu'de hi 'red oak'. I give the long vowel in the latter with a particularly clear conscience as it is indicated as such in Gilmore. Winnebago has c^a(a)s^ke(') hu (Gilmore) and c^aaas^gegu (Miner) for the former, and, matching the latter, huu'c^ 'acorn'. Dakotan has usku'yec^ha-hu for 'bur oak' (sic, for oskuyec^ha(N) hu (?)) and u'ta hu 'red oak' (Gilmore). But Buechel gives u'ta 'hazelnut, acorns' and utahu 'oak (acorn tree)' with u'tahu c^haN for the 'burr oak'. In the latter c^haN is 'wood' often used as the 'tree' term in plant names, and so we have an 'acorn-tree tree' form in Siouan, too. (Gilmore's example osku'yac^haN hu does, too, but reverses the two 'tree' elements.) Miner's form for the first Winnebago term in this pair is clarified by IO tha(a)'s^ku 'burr oak', which has a contraction of *tha(a)s^ke and hu. Miner's form might be a typo, but, giving it the benefit of the doubt, it could be an analogical rectification of c^aas^ke' 'burr oak acorn' : c^aas^ku' 'bur oak' to c^aas^ke' : c^aaske'gu. Students of Winnebago waffle somewhat on whether to write s^g or s^k in clusters. The Dakota substitution of osku'ya 'sour' in the name of this tree is interesting. Sku'ya is 'sweet', cf. OP ski'dhe 'sweet', niNski'dhe 'salty'. LaFlesche lists an Osage term hta(a)s^ka' sku'(dh)e hi 'sweet acorn tree; white oak'. It looks like the Dakota form may be abbreviated from something like this. The PMV term for 'burr acorn' seems to be *htaa's^-ka. Tutelo has taaskahuu(i). I think the -i is an artifact of citation, though I'm not sure. The fricative grade is wrong. Biloxi has aNtaska 'basket' and Ofo atuphoNtuska 'basket', which may be connected. Biloxi also has c^axku'(di) 'jack or post oak', presumably with -(h)u contracted. (Biloxi -di is predicative.) Here the initial c^ is wrong for *ht, and the fricative grade is also wrong, but the parallel in form is remarkable. This form probably has something to do with Muskogean forms like Creek "tcoska" "white oak', Hitchiti "tciski" 'white oak', etc., so there are apparently comparable terms in other languages. The 'red oak/acorn' term is irregular. OP buu'de matches IO bu(u)'j^e, except that we'd expect OP *biide in a regular correspondence. (Quapaw has ppi(i)'de, in which pp instead of p is the problem, possibly a difficulty in Dorsey's transcriptions.) Modulo these little problems we seem to have PS *puut-. The *p, however, is missing in the rest of the family, including Winnebago. Winnebago has *h, with huu'c^ from *huut-. Dakotan has u'ta < *uut-. Biloxi has uti misk(a) u(di) 'pin oak' (DS 283a), and Ofo has u'tu 'oak', again with -(h)u contracted. These suggest *uut-, too. The b-initial in Dhegiha and Chiwere looks like what happens when first person A1 *w(a)- is added to oral glottal stop stems, so perhaps *puut- represents wa-(?)uut-, with the wa- nonspecific possessor prepended. Winnebago h- is unclear, though Winnebago does have a sort of Cockney (or Shawnee) propensity to add epenthetic h to vowel initial words - usually not if they are ?-stem verbs, though. Choctaw has uti, oti 'chestnut', so there may be non-Siouan examples of comparable terms. A thing you have to know about IO bu(u)'j^e is that it also means glans penis. Latin glans has a similar double meaning. These notes were compiled with the help of the CSD draft. From rwd0002 at unt.edu Mon Jan 5 05:12:01 2004 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:12:01 -0600 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: <3FF80375.6171.16710E@localhost> Message-ID: Quoting bi1 at soas.ac.uk: > Sorry to use the List as a location agency, but is Willem DeReuse out > there or does any one know his email address. I did not find the > University of North Texas web site easy to use. > > Bruce Dear Bruce: Yes, I am a lurker on the Siouan list. My address is rwd0002 at unt.edu. Happy New Year. Willem de Reuse From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 05:43:50 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:43:50 -0800 Subject: tree tree Message-ID: > Apart, perhaps, from the widespread cognacy of 'acorn' in the form 'tree > berry' couldn't you argue that 'oak' had become the unmarked kind of 'tree'? Kind of doubt it. I don't think acorns were tremendously important to the livelihood of Algonquians. Plus, the semantic composition of this word *is* odd; it's not normal for an Algonquian noun, generic or not, to be composed of two parts, both meaning the same basic thing. However, what I think you're describing does happen in a few places: the Proto-Algonquian word for what was probably the yellow poplar, */asa:twiya/, shifts its meaning to plain 'tree' in the plains languages Cheyenne, Arapaho, Gros Ventre, & Nawathinehena. This probably happened by shifting this term to mean 'cottonwoods' in the high plains, with cottonwoods then becoming the 'unmarked kind of tree'. Dave From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 06:25:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:25:17 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > In OP, the patient wa- refers to (I think only animate) 'them', in about > the same distribution as Dakotan wicha-. It also refers to 'us', which I > think in Dakotan is handled with the same uN(k)- that is used for 'we'. > The latter has a quirk in that awa-, rather than wa-, is used for 'us' > in the causatives. In Dakotan, wa- is not used as an animate patient > affixed pronoun in either 'them' or 'us' cases. Is this all correct? This is correct as I understand it. But note that wa as 'us' (P12) is wa-a- with i and dative -(g)i-, since with them we find wea- < wa-(g)i-a-. > What is the career of the animate patient affixed pronoun use of wa- ? > Is it general in Dhegihan, Chiwere and Winnebago, in both 'them' and > 'us' usages? Is it possible that it has been spreading into these > contexts in the same way as we suppose Dakotan wicha did? Da OP IO Wi A12 uN(k)- aN(g)- hiN- hiN- P12 uN(k)- wa-a- wa-wa waNaNg-a- O3p wic^ha- wa- wa- wa- P3ns wa- wa- wa- wa-/waz^aN= Ps3ns wic^ha- wa- ??? ??? I think the bimorphemic P12 forms are all capable of having morphemes like the i-locative fall in the middle. I may have length wrong in some of the wa's in some of the forms. The gist of the current discussion is that productive animate P3ns are actually wic^ha- in Dakotan, too. In general O3p marking occurs only with animates anyway. Use of wa- in some of these contexts may be more or less moribund in some of the languages. Some of Constantine's examples looked like they might have wic^ha- S3ns with active verbs. (A = agent (active + transitive subject), P = patient (stative subject + transitive object), O = (transitive) object, Ps = possessive, 12 = inclusive, 3p = third plural, ns = nonspecific) > Judging from the Dakotan examples given recently, I'd like to propose an > alternative hypothesis that wa- was originally not a noun marker at all, > but that it acted to generalize the action of the verb. This is essentially what I'm arguing, except that I believe it still works this way in OP and Dakota (to the extent that wic^ha hasn't stuck its oar in). > My prediction is that where both versions exist and are transparently > related to each other, the form without the wa- should imply a specific > action, and the form with the wa- should imply that the action is > normative. I would expect this rule to be standard in MVS and at least > well fossilized in Dakotan. I agree with this completely, though I'm calling it "acting on a specific object" (third person object without wa) and "acting on a non-specific object" (third person object with wa). The actual semantics might vary a bit from language to language. > Second, I would propose that generalized verbs were favored as noun > constructions. ... Hence, we get many verb-derived nouns beginning with > wa-. This also should be normal and productive in MVS. Again, this is what I'd say, with different terminology. > Third, as time passes and MVS splits into its daughter languages, new > forms develop to indicate normative or habitual action, and wa- ceases > to be used productively as a normativizer in the non-Dakotan languages. > In ancestral OP at least, the loss of the original wa- rule forces a > reinterpretation of wa- in both the noun and verb contexts. In the noun > context, wa- is now understood as a head-marker for an entity > normatively characterized by the action of the verb. Here I disagree, though I think that linguists and speakers alike might easily fall into the error of thinking this, based on (a) a tendency to see things that translate English nouns as nouns, and (b) taking a sort of rough and ready "this matches this" approach to cutting up the morphemes. If we-action recurs in the form of translations for English nouns that are conceptually action-er nouns, it is natural to assume at first cut that we- is the analog of -er, and a little analysis of the morphology leads to taking wa- in we- as the head marker. I just think this is the wrong analysis. Siouan languages are definitely not nounless, but, though they have sizable numbers of words that are formally nouns, they also have many words that refer like nouns, but are verbal in morphology. Naturally, there is a tendency for such words to behave more and more like nouns in terms of syntax and morphology over time, so we find anomalies in how possessive is marked, etc. For example, the equivalent of 'my house' might be rendered 'I live in it' or 'my he-lives-in-it' to cut across the slippery but convenient slope of translational analysis. I used to think I was maybe the only person with this perhaps somewhat subversive view, but I've detected signs of late that others think somewhat along these lines, too, though perhaps more clearly. > Meanwhile, the wa- on the verb side is also reinterpreted from normative > or habitual or repeated action, to imply multiple objects acted upon. > Since the ancestral language perhaps had no patient pronouns for 'us' > and 'them', wa- was then readapted to fill these slots. I'm not sure that "acting on non-specific" and "acting on multiple" aren't more or less interchangeable concepts in the Siouan languages, though this idea may not hold water for Dakota. The distinction is clear enough in English, but hard to justify in, say, Omaha-Ponca. However, what you suggest is a plausible analysis of how wa- comes to be part of the inflectional morphology of P12 and O3p in various languages and one that I've definitely always used for wa O3p and recently been inclining to for P12, too. It's encouraging to see you coming so readily to the same conclusions. Along these lines, Bob has argued that *(w)aNk- ~ *(w)uNk- as an inclusive marker originates in an incorporated noun for 'man' (cf. French on < Latin homin- used in this way in French), with something like IO waMe ~ waNe 'man' < *waNk-e fitting the formal requirements fairly nicely. We also know that wa- is effectively a "generic incorporated noun" (a pro-incorporand, or pro-noun, if you will, rather like Eskimo pi-, I think). It could easily stand in for a generic reference of some sort in the clause, and Siouan as a whole, with *wa/uNk- in the inclusive role, and Dakotan, with wic^ha- in various animate third peson roles, show that these categories are often handled with incorporated nouns. So, wa- can easily stand in for one of these incorporands. In terms of details, I'm not quite sure why two wa's in P12 in IO. I think the IO and Wi hiN- are cognate to the OP dative contraction of aN(g)- and gi-, which is iN(g)-, and I've argued the details of that elsewhere. I suggest it's a sort of antipassive. The extra a in the Dhegiha wa-a- and Wi waNaNg-a- may be a locative, and essentially the same sort of thing - an oblique reference to the inclusive object. Maybe IO wa-wa- conceals the IO cognate of this a- under some reanalysis. It's interesting to note that Crow-Hidatsa lacks both of these uses of wa-, along with the inclusive pronominal itself. They just pluralize the first person. However, with stative verbs, according to Randy, Crow substitutes for the first person plural a prefix balee which is paired, in effect, with a third person singular verb as far as the morphology of the rest of the form. I don't know if there is an etymology for balee-, though as far as form goes it is essentially wa-ee with an epenthetic r separating the two parts. It could also be an incorporated noun, I suppose. In any event, the general form is very much like what Bob considers we should expect for the historical underpinnings of the inclusive, though I think it must be an independent development. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 06:30:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:30:03 -0700 Subject: tree tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > However, what I think you're describing does happen in a few places: the > Proto-Algonquian word for what was probably the yellow poplar, > */asa:twiya/, shifts its meaning to plain 'tree' in the plains languages > Cheyenne, Arapaho, Gros Ventre, & Nawathinehena. This probably happened > by shifting this term to mean 'cottonwoods' in the high plains, with > cottonwoods then becoming the 'unmarked kind of tree'. Oaks are certainly very common in Eastern hardwood forests, though I think North America's variety of tree species is much larger than than in, say, Europe. Cottonwoods are pretty unmarked on the Plains, though in some places the balance seems to be shifting in favor of the Russian Olive, sad to say. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 07:30:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:30:18 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <15585306187.20040103143020@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Wablenica wrote: > I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 > derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, > almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words > starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about > wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple > or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? As I understand it, the anomaly arises from the bulk of the productive instances being essentially verbal in nature, and predictable from the stem. Wa and wic^ha forms that are fixed nominal expressions or seem idiomatic in use are listed in the dictionaries, but those that are predictable "detransitivized" forms derived from transitive verbs are not listed. So, we have to ask ourselves, when faced with a transitive verb - does the detransitivized or non-spcific object form of this verb take wa, wic^ha, or perhaps both? My understanding hitherto has been that it would take wa and that would be the end of it, but Regina and at least to some extent Linda are telling us that if the non-specific reference is animate and especially if it is human the actual form of the affix is wic^ha, not wa. Thus thi'wic^hakte is both a nominal reference 'murderer', which does get listed in the dictionaries, and the predictable non-specific object form 'to commit murder; to murder people' corresponding to thikte' 'to murder someone; to murder a particular person', which the knowledgeable dictionary user is to deduce from the listing of thikte' only. I'm still not quite clear if it's only occasional benighted students of Omaha-Ponca who were under the impression that the correct form there was thiwa'kte, with all of the Dakotanists, at least, in the know all along, or if there has been some historical confusion among Dakotanists about this, too. Unfortunately, Siouanists in general are pretty unsure what forms to list in Siouan dictionaries, as we are in general quite vague on what forms are predictable. I think the usual approach has been to eliminate anything that seemed inflectional in some fairly imprecise sense, and to include anything that was (a) unpredictable in meaning, or (b) the translationof something we would include in an English dictionary, while (c) hoping that all these criteria were consistant and useful. I think this is why the best dictionaries are made by teams of native speakers who are also highly-educated workoholic geniuses, though a single workoholic of any kind at all is the normal substitute. Apart from this, the different nature of the morphology and/or syntax of transitivity in Siouan and European languages makes the glossing of verb forms something of a difficult art. The usual practices of the more thoughtful students of the languages are sometimes quite stilted and clearly bother native speakers who expect something straightforward and idiomatic in the English. This is general problem, of course, not only with respect to other issues in Siouan-English translation - think of the issue of glossing motion verbs - but in bilingual dictionaries generally. In essence, a good, clarifying gloss is anything but a good idiomatic translation. You have to be adept at converting the glosses into working English. All this without addressing the issue of actual definitions at all! It has never really occurred to me before that gloss, translation, and definition could be different. > 1. Wicha- prefixed. These might be argued to be or include body-part possessives. > wicha'chepa Human fatness, obesity > wicha'chepahala a certain high but not wide mountain > wicha'hooyu'spa a voice or sound record; a sound recorder > wicha'phehiNkag^api False hair, a wig These might be argued to be kinterm possessives. > wicha'atkuku a father, their father > wicha'chiNca Children, posterity, offspring, > wicha'huNkake Ancestors > wicha'huNku a mother, mothers wica'h^aNh^aN I think these might be some sort of noun-noun compound. > wicha'thoka a male captive > wicha'thokeca Differences; things different Maybe this is, too? > wicha'gnas^ka gooseberries But 'person-frogs'? There has to be a story there! The rest look like arguably good cases of lexicalized non-specific reference wic^ha nominalizations. > --It would be interesting, of course, to learn the difference between > wawiyuNg^api, > wiwichayuNg^api, > wi'yuNg^api, and > wo'(w)iyuNg^e Yes indeed! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 07:40:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:40:17 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) Message-ID: I've taken the liberty of posting this to the list. Tjhis a great question which came to me as a personal query, but it's one for which I don't have an answer and an answer would be very desirable to SIouanists at large. I've been asking myself the same question for about two years now! I was just discussing this with Mark Swetland, too. Is it possible to convert microfilm to a stack of CDs with image files on them? Does anyone know the tools for this, or the name of any services that do it for you? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:16:55 -0600 From: Tom Leonard Aho, John! Have a question for you. Several years ago I purchased all of the microfilms (6 or 8 rolls) of the Dorsey material at the National Archives. These were the rolls that you had told me about. [Note: The world owes these to Mark Swetland who went to the NAA and made them for them. Unlike the APS, the NAA does not - or did not at the time, anyway - make it a practice to microfilm their holdings. I suspect this is a budgetary issue, since it's kind of an obvious step.] There's some great material on them but I don't have convenient access to a microfilm reader. Copying each slide got way too expensive and the copies were hard to read. Considering the advances in technology and lower equipment prices, it seems to me we should now be able to scan the film into tiff , GIF, JPEG, etc., files. I ordered "reverse images" on the films, i.e. black writing on white background (a whole lot easier to read). I've been shopping around eBay and the like for scanners but I really don't know enough about what is required. Have any idea about what's needed here? Does anyone at CU have the necessary equipment or ability to advise? Having the Dorsey material in digital format would be a whole lot easier for a bunch of us; don't you think? Would appreciate any ideas you might have on this. Wi'btha ho! Tom From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 08:13:47 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:13:47 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Considering the advances in technology and lower equipment prices, it > seems to me we should now be able to scan the film into tiff , GIF, JPEG, > etc., files. I ordered "reverse images" on the films, i.e. black writing > on white background (a whole lot easier to read). I've been shopping > around eBay and the like for scanners but I really don't know enough about > what is required. My first answer to Tom's query is that I have noticed that Publishing Perfection sells - or used to sell - haven't checked recently - something called the PacficImage PrimeFilm 1800 AFL scanner, which scans 35 mm film and has an automatic film loader that feeds 35 mm strips and rolled film. It was $295 the last I looked. I don't know what size rolls (not same as reels?) it handles and, of course, microfilm is not 35 mm anyway. I don't know if such a device or something like it might suffice to scan microfim, even rather laboriously with a lot of hand attendance and screen shot adjustment. I never got so far as to investigate this as at the moment - now stretching out to several years - I don't really have the money to pursue it if it would work! My second answer is that I assume there is a company somewhere that will do this, reducing the problem to one of copying CDs, but I don't know who they are or if any of one or coalition of us can afford it. Mark Swetland's solution was to buy a used microfim reader, and that may be the best one. That bracketed note about Mark's contributions to all this in the posting of Tom's inquiry was me, by the way, not Tom. I'm not sure how many CDs of images from 8 rolls of microfilm works out to, by the way, but I suspect it is a fair number. For the Dorsey OP slip file alone, which I remember as an estimated 20K slips that is 20K images, and if each image is 1 MB, just for the sake of argument, then we are talking about 20 GB. Looking at it another way, a CD holds about 600 MB of data (along with indices, etc.). That means 600 images on a CD, or 34 CDs. And this is for the slip file. It might make more sense to look at DVDs, which hold much more, though I don't actually have a DVD reader at present. I think typical formats hold 2-5 GB of data, which reduces the number of disks to 4-10. Mark and Rory probably have a better handle on the numbers of images involved. The earlier approach to this that I thought of was to see if anyone was interested in publishing the slips and grammar as is, xerographically. I had a suspicion the answer was "Not really," though, in a sense, something like this is needed to do justice to the place of J.O. Dorsey in the field. I mean, they've done things like this for Bloomfield, a mere Algonquianist when all is said and done (tongue firmly in cheek), even if he did coincidentally publish a few general works of importance. But in Dorsey we're talking about the man who invented the term "second dative," after all! JEK From Hu_Matthews at sil.org Fri Jan 2 19:48:03 2004 From: Hu_Matthews at sil.org (Hu Matthews) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:48:03 -0700 Subject: postpositions Message-ID: In Crow postpositions is (are) the rule. I know of no prepositions in Crow. However, the postpositions are often moved to pre-verb position and pronounced as if they were part of the verb. Also they are bi-morphemic. awé áakeen earth on on the earth áakeen consists of áake (surface,top) plus n (at) Another way of looking at it is to call it a partitive construction. awé áake (the surface of the earth) plus the postposition n. However, if áake is a noun and n is the postposition, then we need to explain why there are very few nouns that can be suffixed with a postposition. Hu Matthews ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:32 AM Subject: postpositions > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > Bruce > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jan 5 14:29:37 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:29:37 -0500 Subject: oak Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: "The Dakota substitution of osku'ya 'sour' in the name of this tree is interesting.B Sku'ya is 'sweet', cf. OP ski'dhe 'sweet', niNski'dhe 'salty'.B LaFlesche lists an Osage term hta(a)s^ka' sku'(dh)e hi 'sweet acorn tree; white oak'.B It looks like the Dakota form may be abbreviated from something like this." I don't know if this relates but it may be useful to point out that the white oak produces sweet, edible acorns, while the black (and related red) oak produces really nasty-tasting fruit filled with tannin. Michael From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jan 5 15:04:08 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:04:08 -0600 Subject: Dorsey microfilms Message-ID: It would probably be best to restrict any really expensive reproduction on CD/DVD to just the Omaha/Ponca files. The Kansa, Osage and Quapaw files are not complete because of financial and time constraints when the work was done, and the files for these languages should be complete before CD's are made. This will cut the cost and bulkiness somewhat, since the non-Omaha materials occupy at least 3 reels and maybe more. Personally, I'd love to have the Omaha lexicon on CD, and we all owe Mark a debt for having produced the microfilms. Bob From ckopris at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 15:44:31 2004 From: ckopris at yahoo.com (Craig Kopris) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 07:44:31 -0800 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, conversion services are definitely available - I've had microfiche converted myself. Unfortunately, the company I used a few years back, New England Archiving or similar, is no longer in business. A google search on microfilm conversion will bring up several other companies. Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. Indexing can be added, as well. >>From what I remember, the cost of an initial cd can be high, but additional copies are cheap. Perhaps those interested in having the Dorsey mss on cd could pool their resources? Sizewise, I had a 500+ p ms, plus software for extracting and viewing the images, all fit on one cd with room to spare. Craig Kopris --- Koontz John E wrote: > I've taken the liberty of posting this to the list. > Tjhis a great > question which came to me as a personal query, but > it's one for which I > don't have an answer and an answer would be very > desirable to SIouanists > at large. I've been asking myself the same question > for about two years > now! I was just discussing this with Mark Swetland, > too. Is it possible > to convert microfilm to a stack of CDs with image > files on them? Does > anyone know the tools for this, or the name of any > services that do it for > you? > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:16:55 -0600 > From: Tom Leonard > > Aho, John! > > Have a question for you. Several years ago I > purchased all of the > microfilms (6 or 8 rolls) of the Dorsey material at > the National Archives. > These were the rolls that you had told me about. > > [Note: The world owes these to Mark Swetland who > went to the NAA and made > them for them. Unlike the APS, the NAA does not - > or did not at the time, > anyway - make it a practice to microfilm their > holdings. I suspect this > is a budgetary issue, since it's kind of an obvious > step.] > > There's some great material on them but I don't have > convenient access to > a microfilm reader. Copying each slide got way too > expensive and the > copies were hard to read. > > Considering the advances in technology and lower > equipment prices, it > seems to me we should now be able to scan the film > into tiff , GIF, JPEG, > etc., files. I ordered "reverse images" on the > films, i.e. black writing > on white background (a whole lot easier to read). > I've been shopping > around eBay and the like for scanners but I really > don't know enough about > what is required. > > Have any idea about what's needed here? Does anyone > at CU have the > necessary equipment or ability to advise? > > Having the Dorsey material in digital format would > be a whole lot easier > for a bunch of us; don't you think? > > Would appreciate any ideas you might have on this. > > Wi'btha ho! > Tom __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 17:02:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:02:38 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20040105154431.79500.qmail@web11406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > Indexing can be added, as well. What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of image is good enough to make out the necessary details? From tleonard at prodigy.net Mon Jan 5 18:28:52 2004 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:28:52 -0600 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm Message-ID: There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in such equipment. I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some light on the subject? TML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 19:55:16 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:55:16 -0800 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm Message-ID: I agree that digital photographing or scanning of original manuscripts is the wave of the future. Cheaper than microfilming, and a LOT easier to use -- just load the jpegs onto your computer and view them through any halfway decent graphics program. You can magnify them or fiddle with the contrast and such at will. Absolutely the way to go. Two years ago I got 24 jpegs of a 300-year-old Pequot vocab from Yale this way, and a Jesuit archive up in Quebec just digitally filmed a huge Illinois dictionary that I hope to receive jpegs of shortly. I expect the practice microfilming such documents will probably go extinct entirely someday. I don't know of anyone who's done it, but I suspect a person could just buy their own digital camera and a stack of diskettes and film one of these old documents on their own, if the archive in question didn't want to be bothered with doing it. I too can't imagine OCR ever becoming a viable option with these old handwritten manuscripts. Dave > Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I > believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task > would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available > (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in > such equipment. From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 20:37:45 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:37:45 -0600 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm In-Reply-To: <003501c3d3b9$c6d404e0$67dd4bab@tleonard> Message-ID: I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any problem getting access for scanning purposes? Carolyn Q. -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Leonard Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:29 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in such equipment. I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some light on the subject? TML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Mon Jan 5 20:59:09 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:59:09 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Aloha All: I thought I better chime in on the discussion. I had broached the topic with Brother John while visiting Boulder last week. This grew out of a question that I had posed last month to the NAA about current costs and options for copying the 8 JOD reels. I have a copy from the original... but have been thinking it might be useful to provide a copy up north to Omaha Nation Public School. I will let you know when the NAA responds to my question. The idea of getting this stuff off of a microfilm reader screen and into a computer is great. I am presuming (in my ignorance of the process) that someone could perform the transfer using a copy of the films (mine or John's or whomsoever's)... and not require access to the original film... or original documents???? Did any of you folks get a copy of the moderately useful finding aid that was delivered back to the NAA with the original reels? I typed it (no computer in those poverty days!). I can try scanning my copy into an attached file and send it to anyone who wants it. best uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Dorsey MicroFilm > I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ > to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any > problem getting access for scanning purposes? > Carolyn Q. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Leonard > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:29 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm > > > There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey > microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service > companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the > quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. > > Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal > of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was > expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes > per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. > > Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I > believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task > would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available > (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in > such equipment. > > I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could > tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some > light on the subject? > > TML > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Koontz John E" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 5 21:20:34 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:20:34 CST Subject: mircofilm digitization Message-ID: Yes, it's all possible. I've spent the last two years working on digitizing dakota and ojibwe texts from both print and microfilm. I just completed converting Iapi Oaye from microfilm to a web-navigable format. The images are archived as 500 dpi (actually better resolution than necessary for microfilm, but necessary for ocr of printed materials) tiff but converted to jpg for web page display. If anyone wants to see the Iapi Oaye cds let me know. Out of the 70 years it was published I'm missing less than ten pages (about 3100 images total. I'm hoping to distribute them more openly this spring when I get better at working with xslt processeors and can make the web pages work in more browser versions. As of right now, all the data and web pages are in xml so at this point it only works in internet explorer 6.0 on a pc. It might work on IE for mac too but I haven't checked. The University of Minnesota Wilson Library has all their microfilm print stations hooked up to computers now with capturing software that can send what you see on the reader to a printer or to a file. The 35mm film scanners and slide scanners don't work with microfilm. You have to have a reader with a paralell port output and software for requesting the image. The equipment to do all this is still too pricy for personal purchase in my opinion, so I'm happy to use the public equipment. My focus has been setting up standards and methods that anyone can replicate if they have the equipment. I work with great, trainable OCR software (Abbyy Finereader 7.0). I did lots of testing to find out what resolution you need to get the best results (500dpi), the best archiving format (tiff for black and white documents, 300 dpi jpg for greyscale or color). If you're interested in jumping into a digitizing project, let me know. This is what I'm committing much of my time to now. Don't waste time with grants and don't spend money on overpriced digitizing services. The quality of most of the digitized material I've seen so far, like those from the LOC and National Library of Canada, are actually really poor quality and consistency and their interfaces are pretty unimpressive and confusing. I'm interested in making all these materials available to anyone as low cost as possible. I posted a few of the images from Iapi Oaye so you can see the output. Here's the URIs: www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_01.jpg www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_02.jpg www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_03.jpg www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_04.jpg They're very large images so it may be a slow download at home. Let me know if you want the current (IE 6.0 for Windows only) version of the iapi oaye cds (only images, it'll probably be a few years before I've got it converted to text, or maybe someone else will do it). It took 4 cds to fit it all, but keep in mind that the images are very very large. I chose to make them huge since the originals were newspaper sized, and I want it to be easily readable. With normal 8.5 by 11 or smaller you'd be able to fit a lot more onto a cd. I have lots of other samples to of digitized print sources, and a few dissertations I got from fiche. In the next few months I'll be posting a list of what I've got. I hope to find some nice person at a university who can offer server space to distrbute the files so people can burn their own cds. I've got a lot of public domain sources digitized (though only a couple converted to full text and it'll be a while before I get the programming done to make those useful), though full text versions are my main goal. Here's some of what I've got: Dakotan: -most of the BIA's indian reader series in lakota (Emil Afraid of Hawk and Ann Nolan Clark) -buechel's grammar, bible history -deloria's dakota texts -dorsey's omaha ponca letters -hunflavy's dakota nyelv (hungarian) -hunt's bible history -pilling's biblio -rigg's grammar, dictionary, 1852 combo Ojibwe: -both baraga grammars, both dictionaries -belcourt's sauteux grammar -cuoq's grammar, dictionary -jones' ojibwe texts -lemoine's dictionary -pilling's biblio -verwyst's exercises -wilson's ojebway grammar I think now I have total around 25-30,000 pages of Dakota material and 15-20,000 pages of Ojibwe material scanned and useable in my nice web-page format. I'm focusing now on encoding full text versions so they're integrable. Now I'm coding full text versions of the Pilling and Pentland algonquian bibliographies and finding ways to combine them in a useful format. Next will be practicing combining a couple of dictionaries. Then there's the possibility of hooking it all together with texts linked to dictionaries and vice versa, having citations and bibliographies linked to digital versions of the original sources... endless possibility that should save lots of research time. There's a lot to this work, and I could go on for hours. I hope that sometime this year everything I've digitized (the public domain stuff) will be freely available to all. I'm am very interested in working with others on digitizing projects. I can give you a complete list of equipment, software, standards, and methods I use if you like. But I'm also open to the possibility of just having microfilm sent here for me to scan. I'm fast, I do good work, and I'd hate to see people spend time and money for low quality output. I enjoy the digitizing work, and from there I can set people up to train and run the ocr software and proof full text versions themselves. I know that in the near future this work will be an essential part of research. The best part is, if you do a good job, once you digitize something you can make it immediately available to everyone for free, and then every time anyone wants to work with the material, there it is! Some of the people here at the U of MN have loved having all the Ojibwe grammars on one cd and all the Ojibwe dicitonaries on another. It saves a lot of time, and makes things available that weren't really all that available before. Pat Warren From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 21:34:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:34:51 -0700 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <000701c3d3ce$c3d166b0$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: In response to kkagesaNga Mark's comment on his finder aid: I still have my copy, but haven't seen it recently. My files have been in chaos for the last five years. This reminds me that that is one of those manuscripts that should maybe be on file with John Boyle, along with the Siouan Archives cover document and maybe my tables of contents for the Dorsey "Ponka" grammar ms. and the Hahn (?) Ponca grammar ms. If anyone ever made a table of contents for the published Lipkind Winnebago grammar, that would be useful, too, by the way! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 21:29:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:29:59 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm In-Reply-To: <000601c3d3cb$c64e06d0$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ > to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any > problem getting access for scanning purposes? I'd be willing to participate and to provide my copy of the film as a source. Returning to the 20K OP slips estimate - what I remember from the NAA card file - at $.025/exposure that works out to $2500. The Os slip file is much smaller and, of course, apart from straight lexical slip files there are things like maps with placenames, and files of personal names, as well as hundreds of pages of grammar mms. and day-to-day working notes. I don't recall if any are on the reels, but the NAA also holds some of the rough fieldnotes for the texts, written in blue pencil on coarse yellow paper, in the Riggs Dakota system with some modification. I was flabbergasted to discover that Dorsey never used "the Dorsey system" of the texts in fieldwork. Including this, there are at least 3 systems in his various work, plus various temporal and venue-based variants. Another astounding thing that appears in the manuscripts of the letters is that many of the names there differ from those published. I believe this reflects changes in Omaha and Ponca names used by various individuals between the time of transcription and the time of redaction. (I suppose it might also be some form of anomymizing, but other names don't change.) For what it's worth, some of Dorsey's ministerial notes are in the regional Episcopal archives in Vermillion. I've never seen these. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 21:46:36 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:46:36 -0700 Subject: mircofilm digitization In-Reply-To: <200401052120.i05LKYJ5001885@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Pat, your information is extremely helpful! I'll look at the images this evening when I get a chance. Are you in touch with Constantine Chmielnicki and Jan Ullrich (currently at Indiana U)? I think they're working along somewhat similar lines with Dakota lexical materials. It would be nice to have everybody on the same standard for once! JEK From wablenica at mail.ru Mon Jan 5 21:44:40 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:44:40 +0300 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello John: Monday, January 5, 2004, 10:30:18 AM, you wrote: KJE> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Wablenica wrote: >> I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 >> derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, >> almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words >> starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about >> wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple >> or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? KJE> As I understand it, the anomaly arises from the bulk of the productive KJE> instances being essentially verbal in nature, and predictable from the KJE> stem. Wa and wic^ha forms that are fixed nominal expressions or seem KJE> idiomatic in use are listed in the dictionaries, but those that are KJE> predictable "detransitivized" forms derived from transitive verbs are not KJE> listed. --I agree that the Buechel's dictionary cannot be considered a reliable source for derivation type frequency estimations. However I haven't yet seen the strong evidence for wicha- as a detransitivizer. Let's recall Regina's examples once again: (1) okichize el ota wicha-kte-pi war in many WICHA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' (2) *okichize el ota wa-kte-pi war in many WA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' " IMHO, the first sentence has an explicit PAT, a pronoun "ota", and wicha- here is just a regular pleonastic 3d person plural pronominal affix. Ota is "non-specific", not wicha :-)! This exlains the ungrammaticality of the second sentence: wa- cannot plug the valence already "filled" with ota. I would even translate the sent.#2 as "many made a killing in the war", if detransitivized wakte could be freely used as an independent verb, not an adverbial (wakte glipi). To my mind, we could talk about some additional function of wicha- if it could occur a) in sentences without "ota", "huNx", etc.: okichize el wicha-kte-pi -with non-specific meaning, not anaphoric ("people were killed in the war", not "(they) were killed in the war") b) and, more important, with non-specific _singular_ patiens implied: ? John the-wicha-xila. ? "John fell in love". However I doubt that such ambiguous usage of wicha- may easily spring forth. Regina wrote: "I hope that with ota 'many', I have created a PAT that is non-specific enough to "deserve" being cross-referenced by wa-, at least theoretically." --But I guess that the usage of wa- is triggered by formal grammatical conditions, not semantical ones. Likewise, we can say: wichasha wan ktepi, "they killed some man" tuwa ktepi, "they killed somebody" wanji ktepi, "they killed (some)one" --but wa- cannot be used here too. Finally, talking about the productivity, I'd like to suggest the following thesis: While stand-alone verbs with a wa-plug almost always have some idiomatic shades of meaning, _most_ transitive verbs may take wa- in some compounds, like those V+V cases described in Regina's great article: wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot wa-khute chin - he wants to shoot wa-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting, etc. Then what is the meaning of wicha-khute okihi wicha-khute chin wicha-khul wayuphike ? Best wishes, Constantine Chmielnicki From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jan 6 00:16:19 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:16:19 -0600 Subject: animate wa- Message-ID: Hello Constantine, I'm wondering if the dictionary definitions given are adequate to convey the full sense. My Lakhota is very rusty, but I wonder if we couldn't distinguish some of these as follows: khute okihi - he's able to shoot (specific situation-- the target is in front of him, and he stands with the bow drawn.) wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot (generality-- he has the necessary skills for shooting.) wicha-khute okihi - he's able to shoot them (either specific situation or generality; emphasis is on the transitivity of the action.) khute chin - he wants to shoot (specific situation-- he wants to take a shot immediately.) wa-khute chin - he wants to shoot (generality-- he wants to engage in the activity of shooting.) wicha-khute chin - he wants to shoot them (either specific situation or generality; emphasis is on somebody likely to get shot.) wa-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting, etc. (generality-- he is permanently good at shooting things in general.) wicha-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting them (generality-- he is permanently good at shooting those animate beings.) Do these interpretations make sense? If so, I wonder if we could distinguish wicha- from wa- by supposing wicha- to emphasize the transitivity of an action while wa- de-emphasizes it. Either could be used as a generalizer, and either could end up functioning as a noun. Rory Wablenica To: Koontz John E Sent by: cc: owner-siouan at lists.c Subject: Re: animate wa- olorado.edu 01/05/2004 03:44 PM Please respond to Wablenica Hello John: Monday, January 5, 2004, 10:30:18 AM, you wrote: KJE> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Wablenica wrote: >> I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 >> derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, >> almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words >> starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about >> wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple >> or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? KJE> As I understand it, the anomaly arises from the bulk of the productive KJE> instances being essentially verbal in nature, and predictable from the KJE> stem. Wa and wic^ha forms that are fixed nominal expressions or seem KJE> idiomatic in use are listed in the dictionaries, but those that are KJE> predictable "detransitivized" forms derived from transitive verbs are not KJE> listed. --I agree that the Buechel's dictionary cannot be considered a reliable source for derivation type frequency estimations. However I haven't yet seen the strong evidence for wicha- as a detransitivizer. Let's recall Regina's examples once again: (1) okichize el ota wicha-kte-pi war in many WICHA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' (2) *okichize el ota wa-kte-pi war in many WA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' " IMHO, the first sentence has an explicit PAT, a pronoun "ota", and wicha- here is just a regular pleonastic 3d person plural pronominal affix. Ota is "non-specific", not wicha :-)! This exlains the ungrammaticality of the second sentence: wa- cannot plug the valence already "filled" with ota. I would even translate the sent.#2 as "many made a killing in the war", if detransitivized wakte could be freely used as an independent verb, not an adverbial (wakte glipi). To my mind, we could talk about some additional function of wicha- if it could occur a) in sentences without "ota", "huNx", etc.: okichize el wicha-kte-pi -with non-specific meaning, not anaphoric ("people were killed in the war", not "(they) were killed in the war") b) and, more important, with non-specific _singular_ patiens implied: ? John the-wicha-xila. ? "John fell in love". However I doubt that such ambiguous usage of wicha- may easily spring forth. Regina wrote: "I hope that with ota 'many', I have created a PAT that is non-specific enough to "deserve" being cross-referenced by wa-, at least theoretically." --But I guess that the usage of wa- is triggered by formal grammatical conditions, not semantical ones. Likewise, we can say: wichasha wan ktepi, "they killed some man" tuwa ktepi, "they killed somebody" wanji ktepi, "they killed (some)one" --but wa- cannot be used here too. Finally, talking about the productivity, I'd like to suggest the following thesis: While stand-alone verbs with a wa-plug almost always have some idiomatic shades of meaning, _most_ transitive verbs may take wa- in some compounds, like those V+V cases described in Regina's great article: wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot wa-khute chin - he wants to shoot wa-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting, etc. Then what is the meaning of wicha-khute okihi wicha-khute chin wicha-khul wayuphike ? Best wishes, Constantine Chmielnicki From wablenica at mail.ru Tue Jan 6 04:47:50 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 07:47:50 +0300 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Rory, Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 3:16:19 AM, you wrote: RML> I'm wondering if the dictionary definitions given RML> are adequate to convey the full sense. My Lakhota RML> is very rusty, but I wonder if we couldn't distinguish RML> some of these as follows: RML> khute okihi - he's able to shoot (specific situation-- RML> the target is in front of him, and he RML> stands with the bow drawn.) RML> wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot (generality-- RML> he has the necessary skills for RML> shooting.) RML> wicha-khute okihi - he's able to shoot them (either RML> specific situation or generality; RML> emphasis is on the transitivity RML> of the action.) --I'd like to know this too. Perhaps Regina and Violet could answer whether wicha- forms may mean generality too. Constantine From warr0120 at umn.edu Tue Jan 6 09:52:43 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:52:43 CST Subject: mircofilm digitization Message-ID: Hi all, Anyone who's interested in the digitized sources I've got can certainly get cds. Right now, no text is available. A brief list was in my last email. And all I can currently offer is plain images with out the web page navigation, except for Iapi Oaye, which is the first one complete in the new format (only for Internet Explorer 6.0 for pc). In the next few months I'll have the web pages functional again. Right now I'm converting everything from hardcoded html to xml, and creating better bibliographies. When that's done I'll bring in some of the full text versions and start asking people to share full text versions they have so they can be included. All the stuff I'm doing is open source and free, and I want it to eventually, once the infrastructure and programming is in place, to be a collaborative project. Like with the Dorsey film, I'd be happy to the digitization of the film to make the images available. I gladly welcome such challenges, and it would be much easier to get the film from one of you than going to Maryland or waiting many months to purchase an overpriced duplicate. And I can test the ocr process to see how well it works with that particular source (I'm somewhat sceptical about the quality of handwritten documents from microfilm). Ultimately I like to do digitization of images from whatever sources myself, or train people to do high quality transfer from microform or print to digital image. And then I'd like to do ocr work myself or train people there too. Then I want to put ocr results out there for other people to proof when they have time or interest, and continually offer updated versions based on whatever people get done. And once full text versions are available I'd like to do very detailed xml coding of them so they can be integrated into larger web-based datebases of linguistic and cultural data, e.g. so comparative dictionaries can be autmatically created depending on the sources you select, and searchable or sorted however you like. I hope some others find the possibilities of this stuff exciting. When you start using the kind of digitized materials I've been working with on my computer for the last two years, I think you'll all realize some things are really about to change. Pat From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 13:34:27 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 07:34:27 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <000701c3d3ce$c3d166b0$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mark, I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful finding aid. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Mark-Awakuni Swetland Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:59 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Aloha All: I thought I better chime in on the discussion. I had broached the topic with Brother John while visiting Boulder last week. This grew out of a question that I had posed last month to the NAA about current costs and options for copying the 8 JOD reels. I have a copy from the original... but have been thinking it might be useful to provide a copy up north to Omaha Nation Public School. I will let you know when the NAA responds to my question. The idea of getting this stuff off of a microfilm reader screen and into a computer is great. I am presuming (in my ignorance of the process) that someone could perform the transfer using a copy of the films (mine or John's or whomsoever's)... and not require access to the original film... or original documents???? Did any of you folks get a copy of the moderately useful finding aid that was delivered back to the NAA with the original reels? I typed it (no computer in those poverty days!). I can try scanning my copy into an attached file and send it to anyone who wants it. best uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Dorsey MicroFilm > I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ > to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any > problem getting access for scanning purposes? > Carolyn Q. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Leonard > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:29 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm > > > There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey > microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service > companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the > quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. > > Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal > of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was > expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes > per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. > > Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I > believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task > would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available > (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in > such equipment. > > I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could > tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some > light on the subject? > > TML > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Koontz John E" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Jan 6 15:08:21 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:08:21 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: 1) In an historical listing of family heads in "Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Standing Rock Agency, Fort Yates, North Dakota Roll 5A: Record of Rations Issued 1885 (http://www.primeau.org/StandingRock1885families.html) I found the following proper names: "Miniowicakte - Kill In the Water" (a) "Tiowicukte - Kill In the House" (b) 2) Buechel S.J. has in his dictionary: tiwicakte [thi'wic^hakte] - a murderer, to commit murder (c) tikte [thikte'] - to murder (d) and also tiokte [thio'kte] - to kill in the house, commit homicide (e) As it seems, (a) is _mni owicakte_ [mni-o'wicha-kte] or [mni-owi'cha-kte]??, (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing) Given that Dakotan namings very often refer to specific events/deeds in the past, I'm inclined to assume that the English renderings here are not specific enough. So, I'd translate (a) as: "(he) has killed them in (the) water" and (b) as: "(he) has killed them in the/a house" with _-wica-_ refering to specific animate 3.Pl objects (which, from context, most likely here have to be human <- enemies). With regard to (b), I'd still tend to read _-wica-_ as a reference to "enemies" (despite Buechel's pejorative denotation in (e) ): Given that Native names very often are given to honour their bearers, it would be hard to assume that in this case someone was named by the term "Murderer"). So, I'd like to imagine that (a) and (b) are 'normal' sentences following the topic-comment pattern TOPIC COMMENT mni owicakte ti (kin/wan) owicakte with the comment's wica-particle in its 'regular' function. With regard to (c) and (d), this might be different. With no locative indicated in the 'word', I'm getting the impression that it might be kind of a fossilized term with a former topic (ti) now incorporated in the comment sentence, not much unlike in expressions as _tii'un_ [thi-i'uN] [thi-i'yuN] (to do house-painting), where also from the word's stress put on the second syllable one might deduce that it's a comment-sentence: TOPIC COMMENT 0 tiwicakte 0 tikte Also, as it appears to me, the wica-part here seems to be different from that in the 'regular' examples above. As Buechel's entry seems to suggest, and Kostya has pointed out, it kind of indicates a nonspecific (generic) object, here, that also might be more narrow in its 'animate' meaning, namely referring to humans (wicasa?). These being my amateurish considerations on the context of "house-killing" (which - in Native society - apparably had been regarded/estimated in a way different from "war/battle-killing" and "hunt-killing"). But, maybe, it's all BS :( Best regards Alfred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jan 6 15:26:41 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:26:41 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Carolyn, Will do. If the scan is junk I'll send you a hard copy if you provide a mailing address. Sorry to the list. I couldn't figure out how to get around Carolyn's spam-blocker and communicate off-list. It could not digest my hyphenated name or something. Spam... isn't their a local Hawaiian joke in this somewhere? My wife would kill for a spam musubi about now. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: RE: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Hi Mark, > I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful finding aid. > Carolyn > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 17:15:38 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:15:38 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d469$7c812980$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: HI Mark, I'll be sure to get you through the Spamblocker on my end. Earthlink blocks virtually all spam, that's the good news. The bad news is I have to keep allowing people through which involves several steps and some time and I don't get to it everyday. Sorry. Meanwhile address is: 1807 Driver Road Big Spring TX 79720 Thanks, Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Mark-Awakuni Swetland Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:27 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Carolyn, Will do. If the scan is junk I'll send you a hard copy if you provide a mailing address. Sorry to the list. I couldn't figure out how to get around Carolyn's spam-blocker and communicate off-list. It could not digest my hyphenated name or something. Spam... isn't their a local Hawaiian joke in this somewhere? My wife would kill for a spam musubi about now. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: RE: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Hi Mark, > I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful finding aid. > Carolyn > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 6 17:31:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:31:45 -0700 Subject: animate _wa-_ In-Reply-To: <3FFACF65.9020708@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > (a) as: "(he) has killed them in (the) water" and > (b) as: "(he) has killed them in the/a house" I can't elucidate the rest, but specific references to "killing in a dwelling" and "killing in a stream" (perhaps with an indefinite "somebody" reading of wic^ha) strikes me as plausible in a name or even text, even if thi'wic^hakte is normally taken in an idiomatic sense of "murder, kill in a socially unacceptable context." I can recall specific instances of both being recounted in the Omaha-Ponca texts, e.g., a case where a party of Omahas pursuing a group of Dakotas came upon isolated Dakota tent at night and fired into it, aiming at the shadows on the walls, and another in which an enemy was killed in a struggle in a stream. I don't think, however, that there's any doubt about the idiom. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 6 19:29:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:29:03 -0700 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: <000001c3d397$c9995ee0$17ff16ac@whitman> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Hu Matthews wrote: > Another way of looking at it is to call it a partitive construction. awé > áake (the surface of the earth) plus the postposition n. However, if áake > is a noun and n is the postposition, then we need to explain why there are > very few nouns that can be suffixed with a postposition. I don't really have an explanation for this, but it's true right across Siouan, as far as I know. For example, in Omaha-Ponca =di 'in' can be added to some nouns, sometimes with an additional inserted theme vowel, e.g., in ttia=di 'in (the) house' (or maybe it's tti=adi or just ttiadi). But in many cases it seems necessary to have an intervening article or demonstrative. The common more or less empty-seeming supporting element is e. I have the impression that things are rather similar in Dakotan, at least with the older (?), more initimately connecting postpositions, like =l. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jan 6 21:47:06 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:47:06 -0600 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hi Alfred! Welcome to the list, and thanks for your comments! I had a couple of thoughts on your post: > "Tiowicukte - Kill In the House" (b) >As it seems, > (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing) This might be a typo, as you say, but it might also be a case of an American English spelling convention sneaking in. Over here, the letter 'u' often represents a sound about half way between schwa and [a] as in 'father' or 'Vater', as in 'cut' or 'butter'. Some people call this sound schwa; most language orthographies would class it as a type of 'a' sound. An unaccented -a at the end of a word, as in Latin in'sula or puella usually seems to be pronounced with this sound. In American comic book orthography, an open syllable of this sound is commonly spelled "uh". I think the IPA symbol is an inverted 'v'. I suspect the Dakotan speaker didn't lower his jaw all all the way to full [a], so the English-thinking recorder may have heard this name as "Tee-oh-wee-chuck-tay", and failed to get all the vowels converted to proper Dakotan. > So, I'd like to imagine that (a) and (b) are 'normal' sentences following the topic-comment pattern > TOPIC COMMENT mni owicakte ti (kin/wan) owicakte with the comment's wica-particle in its 'regular' function. With regard to (c) and (d), this might be different. With no locative indicated in the 'word', I'm getting the impression that it might be kind of a fossilized term with a former topic (ti) now incorporated in the comment sentence, not much unlike in expressions as _tii'un_ [thi-i'uN] [thi-i'yuN] (to do house-painting), where also from the word's stress put on the second syllable one might deduce that it's a comment-sentence: TOPIC COMMENT 0 tiwicakte 0 tikte I'm not sure whether mni and ti qualify as topics here or not. They may; I'm just not sure. In any case, they aren't participants with the verb as either actors or objects; they function more as qualifiers of the overall action. Nouns can modify other nouns in MVS just as they do in English and German, with the modifying noun preceding the one modified; e.g. rail-road, steam-boat, etc. In MVS, they seem to be able to modify verbs just as freely. In English, this doesn't seem to be so acceptable, except in gerunds like the ones you listed: "house-killing", etc. (I think it works freely in German though, doesn't it? "Er hat ihnen hausumgebringt" ??) I think the difference between ti-kte and (I presume) ti-o-kte is probably the same as that between "house-killing" and "killing in a house" in English. The first qualifies the killing with a "house", which only means that the killing is distinguished by the fact that it involves a house. It might be that the killer catches the victim at or in a house, or it might mean that the killer slays his victims by picking up houses and hurling them at them. The second more specifically says that the killing occurs in a house. Given that hurling houses at people is improbable, both versions will probably be understood the same way by the hearers. Regards, Rory "Alfred W. Tüting" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Sent by: cc: owner-siouan at lists.c Subject: animate _wa-_ olorado.edu 01/06/2004 09:08 AM Please respond to siouan 1) In an historical listing of family heads in "Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Standing Rock Agency, Fort Yates, North Dakota Roll 5A: Record of Rations Issued 1885 (http://www.primeau.org/StandingRock1885families.html) I found the following proper names: "Miniowicakte - Kill In the Water" (a) "Tiowicukte - Kill In the House" (b) 2) Buechel S.J. has in his dictionary: tiwicakte [thi'wic^hakte] - a murderer, to commit murder (c) tikte [thikte'] - to murder (d) and also tiokte [thio'kte] - to kill in the house, commit homicide (e) As it seems, (a) is _mni owicakte_ [mni-o'wicha-kte] or [mni-owi'cha-kte]??, (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing) Given that Dakotan namings very often refer to specific events/deeds in the past, I'm inclined to assume that the English renderings here are not specific enough. So, I'd translate (a) as: "(he) has killed them in (the) water" and (b) as: "(he) has killed them in the/a house" with _-wica-_ refering to specific animate 3.Pl objects (which, from context, most likely here have to be human <- enemies). With regard to (b), I'd still tend to read _-wica-_ as a reference to "enemies" (despite Buechel's pejorative denotation in (e) ): Given that Native names very often are given to honour their bearers, it would be hard to assume that in this case someone was named by the term "Murderer"). So, I'd like to imagine that (a) and (b) are 'normal' sentences following the topic-comment pattern TOPIC COMMENT mni owicakte ti (kin/wan) owicakte with the comment's wica-particle in its 'regular' function. With regard to (c) and (d), this might be different. With no locative indicated in the 'word', I'm getting the impression that it might be kind of a fossilized term with a former topic (ti) now incorporated in the comment sentence, not much unlike in expressions as _tii'un_ [thi-i'uN] [thi-i'yuN] (to do house-painting), where also from the word's stress put on the second syllable one might deduce that it's a comment-sentence: TOPIC COMMENT 0 tiwicakte 0 tikte Also, as it appears to me, the wica-part here seems to be different from that in the 'regular' examples above. As Buechel's entry seems to suggest, and Kostya has pointed out, it kind of indicates a nonspecific (generic) object, here, that also might be more narrow in its 'animate' meaning, namely referring to humans (wicasa?). These being my amateurish considerations on the context of "house-killing" (which - in Native society - apparably had been regarded/estimated in a way different from "war/battle-killing" and "hunt-killing"). But, maybe, it's all BS :( Best regards Alfred From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jan 6 23:17:45 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:17:45 -0700 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: <3FF572F3.13758.74B012@localhost> Message-ID: Sorry to be so silent for the past couple of weeks -- I won't catch up with the "wa" discussion for a couple more weeks, either -- but I can tell you that Wichita has neither postpositions nor prepositions, just derivational morphology in the verb. There are no PPs, just locative arguments for the verbs. "I sat on the rock" would thus be literally "where the rock is, I sat-on-top". There is a verb I gloss 'to be a place' which you can use if you want the locative to be the predicate or if there is something weird about including the locative in the main verb. I have a little paper (very speculative, but kind of fun) on a possible way to relate Siouan and Caddoan on this subject. It's in Fabrice Cavoto (ed.), "The Linguist's Linguist: A collection of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer". Lincom Europa 2002. The printed title is "If Macro-Siouan is real, how will you explain this?" I think I intended that "is" to be "isn't", but it's too late for that now. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > Bruce > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 6 23:29:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:29:15 -0600 Subject: postpositions Message-ID: I'd love to read it. You may recall I did a brief comparison of Siouan/Catawban/Yuchi pronominals with one of the sets of Caddoan pronominals at the end of my Siouan Conference paper in Bloomington a few years back. If there's a Macro-Siouan, I think Caddoan may be the next twig up the tree. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "ROOD DAVID S" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: Re: postpositions > > Sorry to be so silent for the past couple of weeks -- I won't catch up > with the "wa" discussion for a couple more weeks, either -- but I can tell > you that Wichita has neither postpositions nor prepositions, just > derivational morphology in the verb. There are no PPs, just locative > arguments for the verbs. "I sat on the rock" would thus be literally > "where the rock is, I sat-on-top". There is a verb I gloss 'to be a > place' which you can use if you want the locative to be the predicate or > if there is something weird about including the locative in the main verb. > > I have a little paper (very speculative, but kind of fun) on a possible > way to relate Siouan and Caddoan on this subject. It's in Fabrice Cavoto > (ed.), "The Linguist's Linguist: A collection of papers in honour of > Alexis Manaster Ramer". Lincom Europa 2002. The printed title is "If > Macro-Siouan is real, how will you explain this?" I think I intended that > "is" to be "isn't", but it's too late for that now. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > > Bruce > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 7 14:25:20 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:25:20 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hello Rory and John, thanks for the welcome and taking the time to comment my post. I'll still have to ponder on it for a while. >>As it seems, (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing)<<<< >This might be a typo, as you say, but it might also be a case of an American English spelling convention sneaking in. Over here, the letter 'u' often represents a sound about half way between schwa and [a] as in 'father' or 'Vater', as in 'cut' or 'butter'. Some people call this sound schwa; most language orthographies would class it as a type of 'a' sound. An unaccented -a at the end of a word, as in Latin in'sula or puella usually seems to be pronounced with this sound. In American comic book orthography, an open syllable of this sound is commonly spelled "uh". I think the IPA symbol is an inverted 'v'. I suspect the Dakotan speaker didn't lower his jaw all all the way to full [a], so the English-thinking recorder may have heard this name as "Tee-oh-wee-chuck-tay", and failed to get all the vowels converted to proper Dakotan.<< Yes, you totally convinced me on that :-) (But there are real typos in the list, too, which nevertheless is an important, interesting and even somewhat touching historical document.) >I'm not sure whether mni and ti qualify as topics here or not. They may; I'm just not sure. In any case, they aren't participants with the verb as either actors or objects; they function more as qualifiers of the overall action. Nouns can modify other nouns in MVS just as they do in English and German, with the modifying noun preceding the one modified; e.g. rail-road, steam-boat, etc. In MVS, they seem to be able to modify verbs just as freely. In English, this doesn't seem to be so acceptable, except in gerunds like the ones you listed: "house-killing", etc. (I think it works freely in German though, doesn't it? "Er hat ihnen hausumgebringt" ??)<< I'm not a linguist of German language either - rather than an aged native 'speaker' ;-), yet, thinking it over, I can say that, not unlike in Dakota, all this stuff is higly idiomatic also in German (and especially with regard to verbal expressions!). Rendering your nice sentence to be grammatical (I remember Steven Pinker's examples like 'bringed'), as "er hat sie hausumgebracht", it still isn't possible to say that! The only German equivalence in structure to Lakota _tikte_ etc. coming to my mind is 'hausschlachten', more commonly used as nominal '(die) Hausschlachtung' (lit. about: to home-slaughter). It's a comparably old - hence familiar! - term for the butcher coming to the farm to kill the cattle there instead of bringing it to the slaughter house. So, the following utterances are possible: - Heute ist bei uns Hausschlachtung. - Unser Vieh wird nur hausgeschlachtet. - Wir verkaufen hausgeschlachtete Ware. - Morgen werden wir hausschlachten. - Morgen schlachten wir haus (??? although grammatical, yet sounding pretty unfamiliar!) On the other hand, there are no problems with an expression comparable from its structure: Cf. _radfahren_ (new orthography: Rad fahren): to bicycle/cycle/bike (lit.: to bicycle-drive): - Ich liebe das Radfahren (I love cycling) - Wollen wir heute radfahren? (Will we bicycle today?) - Ich fahre heute nicht rad/Rad. (I don't bicycle today) - no problem! Just one more example of how idiomatic all this can be: fernsehen, das Fernsehen, der Fernseher (to watch TV or to teleview; TV; TV (set), lit.: 'to far-see', 'the far-seeing', 'the far-seer'): - Ich will fernsehen (I want to watch TV) - Ich fernsehe (I watch TV) - Ich schaue Fernsehen (lit.: "I look/watch television"), and even, pretty coll. - Ich tu fernsehschauen (lit.: "I do far-see-look"). All this is possible because familiar through daily use! Yet, this is different with a very similar calque - used bureaucratically, but hardly accepted by the speakers: '(der) Fernsprecher' and 'fernsprechen' (telephone/to phone, lit.: 'far-speaker', 'to far-speak'). One never will hear sentences like: "Bitte sei ruhig, ich spreche gerade fern!" (Please be quiet, I'm just doing a phone call!), but instead "... ich telefoniere gerade!" Interestingly, this is similar also e.g. in Hungarian with a calque exactly along this line: 'telephone' here is _távolbeszélö_, yet most likely nobody would ever say "*(én) távolbeszélek..." but simply "telefonálok majd veled" (I'll ring you up). So, language gets coined, polished - and, hence, familiar(!) only through daily use. I feel that's what makes it so hard to judge and distinguish regular from idiomatic forms from outside a language community. It's even more difficult with old tongues of oral tradition like the Native American ones. But whom do I tell this! ;-) I apologize for this little digression! Best regards Alfred From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed Jan 7 15:39:20 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:39:20 -0500 Subject: Bringing down the house? (animate wa-) In-Reply-To: <3FFC16D0.3020102@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred’s examples of hausschlacten and radfahren, although they appear to have the same structure, are actually different. Schlachten and fahren are both two-place predicates. In radfahren, one place is taken by Rad, the NP ‘bicycle’, object of fahren, so in “ich fahre Rad, both arguments are overt. In hausschlacten, haus- is not nominal but adverbial - it simply states where the Schlactung will occur. In “Morgen werden wir hausschlacten”, the object is implied, not overt. If you said, “Wir hausschlacten unser Vieh” then both arguments (wir, Vieh) are visible, and you see that “haus-“ isn’t one of them! This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *morgen schlacten wir haus. Linda Quoting "\"Alfred W. Tüting\"" : > Hello Rory and John, > > thanks for the welcome and taking the time to comment my post. I'll > still have to ponder on it for a while. > > > >>As it seems, > (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks > like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing)<<<< > > >This might be a typo, as you say, but it might also be a > case of an American English spelling convention sneaking > in. Over here, the letter 'u' often represents a sound > about half way between schwa and [a] as in 'father' or > 'Vater', as in 'cut' or 'butter'. Some people call this > sound schwa; most language orthographies would class it > as a type of 'a' sound. An unaccented -a at the end of > a word, as in Latin in'sula or puella usually seems to > be pronounced with this sound. In American comic book > orthography, an open syllable of this sound is commonly > spelled "uh". I think the IPA symbol is an inverted 'v'. > I suspect the Dakotan speaker didn't lower his jaw all > all the way to full [a], so the English-thinking recorder > may have heard this name as "Tee-oh-wee-chuck-tay", and > failed to get all the vowels converted to proper Dakotan.<< > > Yes, you totally convinced me on that :-) (But there are real typos in > the list, too, which nevertheless is an important, interesting and even > somewhat touching historical document.) > > > >I'm not sure whether mni and ti qualify as topics here or > not. They may; I'm just not sure. In any case, they aren't > participants with the verb as either actors or objects; they > function more as qualifiers of the overall action. Nouns > can modify other nouns in MVS just as they do in English and > German, with the modifying noun preceding the one modified; > e.g. rail-road, steam-boat, etc. In MVS, they seem to be > able to modify verbs just as freely. In English, this doesn't > seem to be so acceptable, except in gerunds like the ones you > listed: "house-killing", etc. (I think it works freely in > German though, doesn't it? "Er hat ihnen hausumgebringt" ??)<< > > I'm not a linguist of German language either - rather than an aged > native 'speaker' ;-), yet, thinking it over, I can say that, not unlike > in Dakota, all this stuff is higly idiomatic also in German (and > especially with regard to verbal expressions!). Rendering your nice > sentence to be grammatical (I remember Steven Pinker's examples like > 'bringed'), as "er hat sie hausumgebracht", it still isn't possible to > say that! The only German equivalence in structure to Lakota _tikte_ > etc. coming to my mind is 'hausschlachten', more commonly used as > nominal '(die) Hausschlachtung' (lit. about: to home-slaughter). It's a > comparably old - hence familiar! - term for the butcher coming to the > farm to kill the cattle there instead of bringing it to the slaughter > house. So, the following utterances are possible: > > - Heute ist bei uns Hausschlachtung. > - Unser Vieh wird nur hausgeschlachtet. > - Wir verkaufen hausgeschlachtete Ware. > - Morgen werden wir hausschlachten. > > - Morgen schlachten wir haus (??? although grammatical, yet sounding > pretty unfamiliar!) > > On the other hand, there are no problems with an expression comparable > from its structure: > > Cf. _radfahren_ (new orthography: Rad fahren): to bicycle/cycle/bike > (lit.: to bicycle-drive): > > - Ich liebe das Radfahren (I love cycling) > - Wollen wir heute radfahren? (Will we bicycle today?) > - Ich fahre heute nicht rad/Rad. (I don't bicycle today) - no problem! > > Just one more example of how idiomatic all this can be: > > fernsehen, das Fernsehen, der Fernseher (to watch TV or to teleview; > TV; TV (set), lit.: 'to far-see', 'the far-seeing', 'the far-seer'): > > - Ich will fernsehen (I want to watch TV) > - Ich fernsehe (I watch TV) > - Ich schaue Fernsehen (lit.: "I look/watch television"), and even, > pretty coll. > - Ich tu fernsehschauen (lit.: "I do far-see-look"). > > All this is possible because familiar through daily use! > > Yet, this is different with a very similar calque - used > bureaucratically, but hardly accepted by the speakers: > > '(der) Fernsprecher' and 'fernsprechen' (telephone/to phone, lit.: > 'far-speaker', 'to far-speak'). One never will hear sentences like: > > "Bitte sei ruhig, ich spreche gerade fern!" (Please be quiet, I'm just > doing a phone call!), but instead "... ich telefoniere gerade!" > > Interestingly, this is similar also e.g. in Hungarian with a calque > exactly along this line: 'telephone' here is _távolbeszélö_, yet most > likely nobody would ever say "*(én) távolbeszélek..." but simply > "telefonálok majd veled" (I'll ring you up). > > So, language gets coined, polished - and, hence, familiar(!) only > through daily use. I feel that's what makes it so hard to judge and > distinguish regular from idiomatic forms from outside a language > community. It's even more difficult with old tongues of oral tradition > like the Native American ones. But whom do I tell this! ;-) > > I apologize for this little digression! > > Best regards > > Alfred > > > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jan 7 16:06:05 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:06:05 -0600 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye Message-ID: Pat: How can I see the rest of the Iapi Oaye newspaper? I was able to open the four examples from 1871. Louie From warr0120 at umn.edu Wed Jan 7 17:00:38 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:00:38 CST Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye Message-ID: On 7 Jan 2004, Louis Garcia wrote: > > Pat: > How can I see the rest of the Iapi Oaye newspaper? > I was able to open the four examples from 1871. > Louie Louie and others, You can give me your address and I'll send you the four cds. And I realized I can fit the images from all the other public domain Dakota sources I've scanned onto one cd, so I'll send that too. Only Iapi Oaye has a web page interface now, the others are just images sitting in folders waiting for me to give them back their web pages. And again, the Iapi Oaye web pages only work in Internet Explorer 6.0, so look under "Help > About Internet Explorer" to check your "Version". Not that it's hard to find a computer with IE these days. Actually I'm going for a rescheduled meeting this afternoon at the Minnesota Historical Society because last time I went down there to show them the cds they only had IE 5.5 on all their computers and nothing worked. That was a good lesson for me. But hopefully working with them I can eventually digitize archival materials for them (what archives has enough people or funding to do that now? MHS has a $50,000 scanner that nobody uses!) and come out with much better quality for Iapi Oaye from originals than I got from microform. And hopefully they'd want to host digital versions of their own holdings on their own website for everyone's benefit. In the meantime, though, this is a pretty fancy thing. I think these cds are the most complete collection out there for Iapi Oaye. Neither the fiche or film versions I used to piece it together were complete, but complemented each other, leaving out fewer than ten missing pages from 3,100. Actually, the catalog listing at institutions that have the microfiche version don't even mention that it's missing 1916-1924! I'm sure nobody ever checked. And that microfiche version was done by a commcercial transfer company, who apparently didn't tell their customer they were missing 358 images. But they did at least film a note that said "issues missing". If anyone is interested in hosting the files online I'd be thrilled. It'd be much easier for everyone to burn their own cds or save them on their hard drive. The files take up about 2.5GB. There's also another GB of other public domain materials, plus a couple of GB of Ojibwe public domain materials that anyone could put online, and the web pages for all those will soon be available. Eventually I hope to negotiate a multi-institution mirrored site online for the materials. But that's a couple years off. I have a lot more parts of the project to have fully functional before I propose that, so people can see the scope of what this is going to be. Pat From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jan 7 18:27:27 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:27:27 -0600 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye reply Message-ID: Pat: Please send the cd's to Louis Garcia Cankdeska Cikana Community College P.O. Box 269 Ft. Totten, ND 58335 Pidamaya yedo. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 7 19:06:05 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:06:05 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Linda, >Alfred’s examples of hausschlachten and radfahren, although they appear to have the same structure, are actually different. Schlachten and fahren are both two-place predicates. In radfahren, one place is taken by Rad, the NP ‘bicycle’, object of fahren, so in “ich fahre Rad, both arguments are overt. In hausschlachten, haus- is not nominal but adverbial - it simply states where the Schlachtung will occur. In “Morgen werden wir hausschlachten”, the object is implied, not overt. If you said, “Wir hausschlachten unser Vieh” then both arguments (wir, Vieh) are visible, and you see that “haus-“ isn’t one of them! This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *morgen schlachten wir haus.<< thank you for shedding some light on this issue, yet, I'm only half convinced: Other than with _schlachten_, I wouldn't be sure to regard _(rad-)fahren_ as a two-place predicate. Not unlike _fahren_ (ich fahre...), it seems to appear as a one-place one, since understood as _ich fahre *mit* einem Rad_ rather than _ich fahre das/ein Rad_ (the part 'rad' seems to be instrumental and maybe not a direct object 'compounded' with the verb). To me, 'haus-' and 'rad-' both seem to be comparable with 'ti-' of, say, _tikte_ or _tii'un_ denoting location, means etc. (in German, adverbial, in Lakota, maybe a - former - topic incorporated in the comment's one-word sentence). Plz compare: fahren (intransitive: ich fahre), schlachten (transitive: ich schlachte etw.) radfahren (still intransitive + instrument) heimfahren (to drive home: intransitive + destination) hausschlachten (still transitive + location) And, I don't think that "und morgen schlachten wir haus" actually is ungrammatical - just bloody unfamiliar to hear! :-) Nevertheless, I think there's something special with compound verbs like 'radfahren', 'autofahren': Ich fahre rad/Rad, ...fahre auto/Auto and(!) 'heimfahren': "ich fahre heim", but not "ich heimfahre" (although _heim_ is NOT a direct object!) On the other hand, your point seems to be supported by the new orthographic rules cf. "Rad fahren", "Auto fahren" (which might express a moreorless subconscious understanding among great parts of the speakers of these particles denoting a direct object). Out of my pretty naive angle, Lakota and German are having quite a couple of common traits. Best regards Alfred From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 7 19:11:22 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:11:22 -0600 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hello Alfred, > Yes, you totally convinced me on that :-) (But there are real typos in > the list, too, which nevertheless is an important, interesting and even > somewhat touching historical document.) Sorry for the overkill. I got carried away, and I actually wasn't too clear on how widespread the sound was even in English. > I'm not a linguist of German language either - rather than an aged > native 'speaker' ;-), Better yet! > yet, thinking it over, I can say that, not unlike > in Dakota, all this stuff is higly idiomatic also in German (and > especially with regard to verbal expressions!). Rendering your nice > sentence to be grammatical (I remember Steven Pinker's examples like > 'bringed'), as "er hat sie hausumgebracht", Ouch! I was afraid I was going to get dinged on that! I had no references at hand, and somehow it crept into my mind that German considered the act of killing somebody to be dative. Thanks for setting me straight; it seems it is accusative, as expected! > it still isn't possible to > say that! The only German equivalence in structure to Lakota _tikte_ > etc. coming to my mind is 'hausschlachten', more commonly used as > nominal '(die) Hausschlachtung' (lit. about: to home-slaughter). It's a > comparably old - hence familiar! - term for the butcher coming to the > farm to kill the cattle there instead of bringing it to the slaughter > house. So, the following utterances are possible: [numerous examples of valid, invalid, and dubious noun-modifying-verb possibilities in German and Hungarian] Alright, I guess it isn't completely free in German either, though it still looks like it's a little more used than in English. A complicating factor occurs to me. In English, we can fairly freely use a noun to modify another noun to get a noun result. We can also easily coin a verb from a noun without any alteration to the original word. rail + road => railroad noun + noun => noun (rail describes the kind of road) railroad =C> railroad noun =C> verb (railroad, v. to push a measure through without proper discussion.) Then what about 'ice-skate', used as a verb? Is this an English example of modifying a verb with a noun, or is it noun modifying noun to get the noun 'ice-skate', then converted into the verb of what one does with them? In any case, your point about these terms being idiomatic is well taken. Some combinations are pretty free; others can occur, but only in traditional combinations. In English, and I think in German and MVS, noun + noun modification is fairly free: if I wanted to describe the (improbable) concept of a class of desks that are specifically used in forests, I could immediately speak of forest desks, and this would be quite acceptable. But it would not be acceptable for me to say that I am going to forest view, though I could say that I am going to ice skate. So what is the situation in Siouan? If I can say ti-kte, 'house-kill', and mni-kte, 'water-kill', are these idiomatic, or can I freely substitute any other semantically reasonable noun for ti and mni? Could I freely say 'forest-kill', 'hearth-kill', 'bed-kill', 'prairie-kill', 'hill-kill', 'snowdrift-kill', or anything similar, as might be appropriate? Best regards, Rory From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 7 19:51:07 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:51:07 -0500 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d469$7c812980$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: Mark, Hey! I'd like a copy of this moderately useful finding aid & I can print a copy for the center, too. Good to talk to you today!! Thanks, Ardis Quoting Mark-Awakuni Swetland : > Carolyn, > Will do. If the scan is junk I'll send you a hard copy if you provide > a > mailing address. > > Sorry to the list. I couldn't figure out how to get around Carolyn's > spam-blocker and communicate off-list. It could not digest my > hyphenated > name or something. Spam... isn't their a local Hawaiian joke in this > somewhere? My wife would kill for a spam musubi about now. > uthixide > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > University of Nebraska > Anthropology/Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies > Bessey Hall 132 > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > 402-472-3455 > FAX 402-472-9642 > mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Q." > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:34 AM > Subject: RE: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > > > > Hi Mark, > > I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful > finding aid. > > Carolyn > > > > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 7 19:57:55 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:57:55 -0600 Subject: Bringing down the house? (animate wa-) Message-ID: Linda, > Alfred’s examples of hausschlacten and radfahren, although they appear to have > the same structure, are actually different. Schlachten and fahren are both > two-place predicates. In radfahren, one place is taken by Rad, the NP ‘bicycle’, > object of fahren, so in “ich fahre Rad, both arguments are overt. In > hausschlacten, haus- is not nominal but adverbial - it simply states where the > Schlactung will occur. In “Morgen werden wir hausschlacten”, the object is > implied, not overt. If you said, “Wir hausschlacten unser Vieh” then both > arguments (wir, Vieh) are visible, and you see that “haus-“ isn’t one of them! > This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *morgen schlacten wir haus. Just to make sure I'm up to speed on your terminology, could you confirm the meaning of "two-place predicate"? Does that just mean a verb that takes two arguments, typically subject/agent and object? Thanks! Rory From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Wed Jan 7 20:36:35 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:36:35 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Aloha Ardis: You bet. I'll drop a copy in the mail today. Good talking with you! Stop in if you get to Lincoln anytime. uthixide mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:51 PM Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Mark, > Hey! I'd like a copy of this moderately useful finding aid & I can > print a copy for the center, too. > Good to talk to you today!! > Thanks, > Ardis From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 7 20:49:42 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:49:42 -0600 Subject: Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would contribute his financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw dictionaries and wouldn't need those reels.) Bob From heike.boedeker at netcologne.de Wed Jan 7 20:45:32 2004 From: heike.boedeker at netcologne.de (Heike =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6deker?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:45:32 +0100 Subject: Incorporation (was: Re: animate _wa-_) In-Reply-To: <3FFC589D.7040308@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 7 21:57:00 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:57:00 -0600 Subject: Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: Bob wrote: > If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, > converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would contribute his > financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw dictionaries > and wouldn't need those reels.) Ditto here, and also for the Kansa, Quapaw and Osage material, which I don't have. Rory From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 7 22:04:29 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:04:29 -0500 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye In-Reply-To: <200401071700.i07H0cOu031037@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Pat, Hi. I'm the SSILA (ssila.org) website manager. What exactly are the requirements of the host site you need? (How big, software, hardware etc.) What kind of interface would you expect and how often would things change if ever? I am not in a position to offer the room as I just manage the site and the exec committee would have to discuss it, but I'm curious and might be able to help somehow. Regards, Ardis Eschenberg Nebraska Indian COmmunity College UmoNhoN Nation Public School Univ. at Buffalo SSILA From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 7 22:20:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:20:20 -0700 Subject: Incorporation (was: Re: animate _wa-_) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040107211959.00a09220@pop3.netcologne.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Heike Bödeker wrote: > Well, how the orthography reform came into being was a very dubious > process which had a lot to do with politics, but less so with linguistic > insights, not to speak of a concern for folk linguistics. Ironically, > these rules have been criticized exactly because they completely ignore > that German does have incorporation. So does English, though to a different extent. One of the most difficult spelling problems in English is determining how to write given compound properly, as a single, a hyphenated form, or as two words. It doesn't make any difference at all what the intonation pattern (or your instincts) might be, you have to follow the dictionary or some equally arbitrary organization or profession-specific set of rules. From voorhis at westman.wave.ca Wed Jan 7 22:53:03 2004 From: voorhis at westman.wave.ca (voorhis at westman.wave.ca) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:53:03 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > ... If anyone ever made a table of contents for > the published Lipkind Winnebago grammar, that would be useful, too, by the > way! I compiled the following nearly 40 years ago: Paul Winnebago Grammar, William Lipkind, Morningside Heights, New York, King's Crown Press, 1945 CONTENTS I. Phonology p. 1 1 - 4. Consonants 5 - 6. Vowels p. 2 7. The Syllable p. 4 8. Duration 9. Accent p. 5 10 - 19. Phonetic Processes p. 6 II. Morphology p. 12 20. Grammatical Processes 21. Grammatical Categories 22. Composition of Stems p. 13 The Verb p. 14 23. Verbal Complex 24. Locative Prefixes p. 15 25. Modal Prefix p. 17 26 - 27. Instrumental Prefixes 28. Verb Classes p. 21 Pronouns p. 22 29. First Class 30. Second Class p. 23 31. Contractions with Prefixes p. 25 32. Indirect Object p. 28 33. Reflexives 34. Emphatic Personal Pronouns p. 28 35. Infixed Pronouns p. 30 36. Possession p. 31 37. Verbal Suffixes p. 32 38 - 46. Final Suffixes p. 33 47 - 65. Adverbial Suffixes p. 36 66 - 76. Subordinating Suffixes p. 40 77 - 78. Verbs of Going and Coming p. 44 79 - 80. Verbal Auxiliaries p. 45 81. Reduplication p. 46 82. Sound Symbolism p. 47 83. The Noun p. 49 84 - 92. Nominal Suffixes 93 - 95. Demonstratives p. 52 96. Interrogative Pronouns and Adverbs p. 54 97. Numerals p. 55 98. Interjections 99. Word Order p. 56 Text p. 58 From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jan 8 02:17:21 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:17:21 -0600 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye Message-ID: Pat: Someone, I believe, Carolyn, was asking about doing other languages, like Osage. Does your time permit you to consider languages other than Dakota/ Omaha-Ponca? If so, what would be the cost per microfilm frame? Jimm From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jan 8 02:54:00 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:54:00 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Is it still available, perhaps as a reprint somewhere? Is this the best and most recent Winn/ Hochank grammar? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Koontz John E wrote: > > ... If anyone ever made a table of contents for > > the published Lipkind Winnebago grammar, that would be useful, too, by the > > way! > > I compiled the following nearly 40 years ago: > Paul > > Winnebago Grammar, William Lipkind, Morningside Heights, New York, > King's Crown Press, 1945 > > CONTENTS > > I. Phonology p. 1 > 1 - 4. Consonants > 5 - 6. Vowels p. 2 > 7. The Syllable p. 4 > 8. Duration > 9. Accent p. 5 > 10 - 19. Phonetic Processes p. 6 > > II. Morphology p. 12 > 20. Grammatical Processes > 21. Grammatical Categories > 22. Composition of Stems p. 13 > > The Verb p. 14 > 23. Verbal Complex > 24. Locative Prefixes p. 15 > 25. Modal Prefix p. 17 > 26 - 27. Instrumental Prefixes > 28. Verb Classes p. 21 > > Pronouns p. 22 > 29. First Class > 30. Second Class p. 23 > > 31. Contractions with Prefixes p. 25 > 32. Indirect Object p. 28 > 33. Reflexives > 34. Emphatic Personal Pronouns p. 28 > 35. Infixed Pronouns p. 30 > 36. Possession p. 31 > 37. Verbal Suffixes p. 32 > 38 - 46. Final Suffixes p. 33 > 47 - 65. Adverbial Suffixes p. 36 > 66 - 76. Subordinating Suffixes p. 40 > 77 - 78. Verbs of Going and Coming p. 44 > 79 - 80. Verbal Auxiliaries p. 45 > 81. Reduplication p. 46 > 82. Sound Symbolism p. 47 > 83. The Noun p. 49 > 84 - 92. Nominal Suffixes > 93 - 95. Demonstratives p. 52 > 96. Interrogative Pronouns and Adverbs p. 54 > 97. Numerals p. 55 > 98. Interjections > 99. Word Order p. 56 > Text p. 58 > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Thu Jan 8 04:48:07 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:48:07 CST Subject: other languages? cost? Message-ID: On 7 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > Pat: > Someone, I believe, Carolyn, was asking about doing other languages, like > Osage. Does your time permit you to consider languages other than Dakota/ > Omaha-Ponca? If so, what would be the cost per microfilm frame? > Jimm Hey Jimm, Short answer: Yes, I'm open to working on anything. Even more so if it's related to something I'm already working on. Cost, zero. This work is too important to involve money. The commitment has to come from personal motivation or it'll be like other great ideas: when the funding runs out so does the interest in doing the work. Long (winded) answer: Yes, my time permits going in any direction. I'm focusing on Dakota and Ojibwe materials because I was learning those two languages at the U of MN and realized the situation as far as written materials to help learners the situation was sad. So my original goal two years ago was to get everything on or in the language and culture gathered together so anyone could have access to it. But this situation is true for most languages. My interests are now more in developing the overall program as a replicable, cooperative venture, and in broadening the application of the kind of digitization and linking together of texts I'm doing. For example the last few months I focused on scanning materials in Italian, German, and French on Somali and Tigrinya, two east african languages that are spoken a lot around the Twin Cities, since I also want to spend a good amount of my time learning the languages that are used where I live, which was a major reason for wanting to learn Dakota and Ojibwe. I'm totally open to working on just about anything. Anything in Siouan or Algonquian languages is an easy sell to me. I would love to work on Osage materials. I really enjoy what I'm doing, except for some of the programming, but that'll be less time-consuming soon. So if people have materials they want digitized, let's get on it! After I finish the bulk of the initial programming over the next couple of months and can focus on the digitization itself, I see the following process emerging: I can focus on the scanning of materials and the training of ocr software to work with the different typefaces and quality levels, then I can post ocr results for anyone to proof who's interested, then I can do the more detailed data coding so texts can be combined and farmed. And there's the potential for getting others set up to do any of this independently. It depends on how much you want to and are able to commit. At the Minnesota Historical Society today we talked about how it's great that I've got these cds of images of Iapi Oaye, and that it's possibly the most complete collection around, but that it'll be much more important as a text document (and for many sources, like the innumerable slightly differing versions of bibles and prayer books in native languages, may only have value as full text data), and eventually as a highly detailed coded database file that can be integrated with dictionaries, grammars, ethnographies, histories, etc. Now, it's a big task to proof 70 years worth of a monthly newspaper, but once the scanning is done and the ocr is run, if there are several people working on different parts of it it can really move along. The project I've got going is at its core an open source, volunteer project. I don't want any money involved with it. Much of the equipment I use is public, and the cost is as close to zero as it can get. Just time. But it's good work, and it's hard to avoid learning some Dakota when you proof a whole dictionary. You get really familiar with the materials and their content in doing this work, and that's a huge reward for me, plus then I can make all this work available to others, and create a way for lots of people to mesh their efforts together and make everyone's research time more productive and increase the quality of the work. Just imagine having the Siouan Languages List linked to all this, so every time you make a citation from some source your email would link right to it. Or at least getting everyone access to the same materials would make it that much more useful when people share questions and insights. So like I said about the Dorsey film, if I have it my hands I can scan it. Not in a day or two, probably four or five months just for scanning and a few more to process the images. If you have any other sources that are really important to get scanned, let me know. The interlibrary loan services here are great, and if materials are rare, just get em to me and I can do the work. Eventually I'll have a user's guide for the whole project so anyone can see all the equipment I use, my standards, my processing techniques, how I code data and program the web interface, etc., so anyone can do the same kind of thing without the two year development investment. Pat From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 11:52:42 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:52:42 -0000 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: <20031219204219.5977.qmail@web40006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Another one like wamakhas^kan 'animal' is wamnitu 'whale' presumably 'thing being in the water', also wablus^ka 'insect', 'small thing' possibly and waglula 'worm' though I can't think of any derivation. Bruce > > wa-makha-s^kaN > WA-earth-move.ITR > 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)', > > we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different way of analyzing this > form? > > Regina > > > > Notice that Dhegiha does allow wa with animate reference. I was > > momentarily taken aback by Regina's comment yesterday that Dakotan wa was > > necessarily inanimate, because of that. Somehow I had always assumed that > > wa could have a non-specific animate reference, too. Would a Dakotan > > nominalization require wic^ha- or something like that if the inspecified > > argument was animate? > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 11:55:53 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:55:53 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <1071963130.3fe4dbfa96d3c@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: The wa-,in waphata could be the instrumental wa- 'by use of a knife' Bruce > > Regarding the following: > > > hé thokéya pteblés^ka ki wichá-kte-pi > > that first cattle DEF 3PL.PAT-kill-PL > > > > na wa-pháta-pi > > and WA-butcher-PL > > 'first they killed the cows and butchered them' > > > > Pteblés^ka 'cattle' is the implied referent of wa- in > > wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'. But since the > > (basically animate) cattle are already dead when being > > butchered, does wa- still count as an animate referent > > in wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'? Similarly, the > > following example raises the question of whether > > plants or plant parts qualify as animate or not. > > I would have expected wicha-phata-pi rather than wa-phata. Could the sentence > mean something like, ‘they killed the cows and then they did some butchering’? > > > > Linda > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 12:15:14 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:15:14 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <001001c3c966$bb01cb50$08b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Isn't wakte a rather specialized usage meaning 'triumph in war' as in wakte gli 'he came home in triumph' or S^ahiyela iwakte glipi 'they came home in triumph after a war with the Cheyenne' ie 'the beat the Cheyenne'. I suppose it still must be thought to have an animate patient though. Bruce Date sent: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:08:44 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "R. Rankin" To: Subject: Re: animate wa- > How might one say "There was a lot of killing in > the war/slaughter." ?? I suppose the PP and > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that > meaning. > > Or maybe not. > > > (2) *okichize el ota wa-kte-pi > > war in many WA-kill-PL > > 'many were killed in the war' > > > (4) *owichakte el ota wa-kte-pi > > slaughter in many WA-kill-PL > > 'many were killed in the slaughter' > > Bob > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 12:32:23 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:32:23 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John I believe thie verb thikte can take an object like wichas^a wan thikte 'he murdered a man (not as in warfare)' Bruce Date sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:50:52 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: animate wa- > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > > in the spot, ... > > Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized > for their "indefinite object" form or forms? > > JEK > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 12:41:02 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:41:02 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Bruce Date sent: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:36:59 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "CATCHES VIOLET" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object' > > > Iyopxeya-to trade or exchange goods or to sell something > iyopxeya-to admonish another or to whip with words (exaggeration) > wiyopxeye-to sell something not trade, but to sell to get money vs iyopxeye > to exchange goods. > supposedly, according to our grandparents most words had two or three > meanings and we have to know how to use them, so when they sound the same we > should be able to distinguish as above... > hope that helps > violet, miye > > > > >From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk > >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > >Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object' > >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:26:44 -0000 > > > >While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the > >fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and > >wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a > >coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? > >Bruce > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet > access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jan 8 23:04:47 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:04:47 +0100 Subject: Incorporation (was: Re: animate _wa-_) Message-ID: >>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Heike Bödeker wrote: Well, how the orthography reform came into being was a very dubious process which had a lot to do with politics, but less so with linguistic insights, not to speak of a concern for folk linguistics. Ironically, these rules have been criticized exactly because they completely ignore that German does have incorporation.<<<< >So does English, though to a different extent. One of the most difficult spelling problems in English is determining how to write given compound properly, as a single, a hyphenated form, or as two words. It doesn't make any difference at all what the intonation pattern (or your instincts) might be, you have to follow the dictionary or some equally arbitrary organization or profession-specific set of rules.<< I heartfelt can't but agree with Heike, be it on most of the (pretty nonsensical) rules of so-called German 'Orthografiereform', be it the fact that German too has incorporation! As for building compounds in German and English (also mentioned by Rory), I've been reflecting about it, coming to a - maybe preliminary - conclusion that (at least in German) this is highly idiomatic due to historical reasons. Basically, there seem to be three ways to form compounds: noun-sg.+noun (Kuhjunge/cowboy; Kuhmist/cow dung), noun-pl.+noun (Pferdemist/horse manure), noun-sg. genitive (Feindesliebe/love for enemy/enemies; Schweinsbraten/roast pork; Rindsroulade/roll of beef). One has to recognizes that in modern coinages compounds based on genitival forms no longer seem to be productive E.g. 'Schweinsbraten' today is regarded as a Southern German variant (which actually is more conservative in many regards) and widely replaced by 'Schweinebraten' Same with 'Rindsroulade' where my online dictionary was asking back: "Did you mean 'Rinderroulade'? ;-) So, the genitive forms in so-called High German are mostly traditionally coined like 'Windsbraut', 'Meeres-/ Waldesrauschen'/about: brawl of the sea/ wood's rustling etc. It is quite impossible to 'calculate' the correct compounds by using the rules - one's got to have the forms stored in memory (not unlike the different forms of irregular past tense in English). I've the impression that it's somewhat comparable with Dakotan noun + 'adjective' forms (e.g. sunkawakan waste wan bluha vs. wicahpi wan kinyan ca wawanyanke): the rules of grammar are correct but don't help - one simply's got to know from memory which topics are 'felt' as fix compounds and which ones still as topics plus kind of dependent clause that has need of a conjunction using _ca_). Kind regards Alfred Best regards Alfred From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 04:42:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:42:38 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: <3FFD448A.5749.C738BB@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Another one like wamakhas^kan 'animal' is wamnitu 'whale' presumably > 'thing being in the water', also wablus^ka 'insect', 'small thing' > possibly and waglula 'worm' though I can't think of any derivation. Wamnitu is a little different in structure (wa-NOUN-POSTPOSITION) compared with wamakhaNs^kaN (wa-NOUN-V.ACTIVE), though we can view POSTPOSITIONS as verbs of a sort. In both cases the noun is essentially a location. With wablus^ka and waglu=la we are dealing with a PS situation, though a very complex one. There is a family of stems that refer to "vermin" or something of that ilk, and cover a range of arthropods, mollusks, annelids, reptiles, and amphibians. The general form is something like wa-CrV(S), often extended with -ka. In this range the CSD has: *waapuS 'vermin 1', cf. Cr baapuxta 'insect', Os (z^aN)puska 'ant' *wakruSka 'vermin 2', cf. Dhegiha forms like OP wagdhi's^ka 'insects, lizzards, worms' and Mandan waakiruxka 'snake, worm, snail' < *wa(a)kruxka. Dakotan forms suggesting *waprus^ka, cf. Te wablus^ka are considered blends of 'vermin 1' and 'vermin 2'. *wakreSka 'vermin 3', cf. Dakotan forms in gles^ka, like thathiN'gles^ka 'intestinal worms', IO thagre'ske 'flea', Biloxi kudeska' 'flea', and so on. *wakraNs^ka 'vermin 4', cf. Te gnas^ka' 'frog', Wi wakanaN's^ke 'frog', Biloxi kanac^ki' 'wood tick'. *wakri ~ *wakru 'vermin 5 (and 6?)', cf. Te waglu'la 'worms, maggots', Sa wamdu'la 'maggots', Wi wikiri 'insect, worm' This is plainly a somewhat arbitrary division into forms, amounting to one phonaestheme and somewhat specialized specializations of it ('frog', 'flea', etc.). What's relevant in the context is that one of the things Bob Rankin noticed about animal terms during the height of CSD work was that a good many animal names have an outright *wa or some etymological trace of *w- or *wa. In Crow and Winnebago it's often *wi instead. Even 'dog', once you get out of Mississippi Valley seems to have been *wis^uNk(e) or *was^uNke. He was able to argue from this and various Catawban and Yuchi parallels that PS probably (but rapidly lost) had a sort of noun-classifier prefix system, in which *wi, maybe alternating under some conditions with *wa, marked animals. Anyway, we have to wonder if some cases of *wa- on terms for animates, like wablus^ka or waglula, aren't relicts of this, especially when the terms are (more or less) reconstructable. This term is plainly "less" given the numerous irregularities in it and the doublets it leads to. This is maybe then yet-another-wa, the wa of animate terminology. Note that wablu's^ka, like wamakhas^kaN and ziNtka'=la, is probably one of the basic category terms for lifeforms in Dakotan, though I don't know if anyone has investigated this anthropological linguistics issue in Dakotan or any other Siouan language. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Fri Jan 9 05:24:35 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:24:35 -0600 Subject: More regarding "wa" Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: More regarding "wa" > Note that wablu's^ka, like wamakhas^kaN and ziNtka'=la, is probably one of > the basic category terms for lifeforms in Dakotan, though I don't know if > anyone has investigated this anthropological linguistics issue in Dakotan > or any other Siouan language. > I cannot speak to your thought above, but I know with certainty that the term "wamakhas^kaN oyate" occurrs regularly in sacred ceremonial songs. In general, it is my understanding in sacred context, that it referrs to all the "meat eating four leggeds", such as the wolf, coyote, fox, bear, etc., and is often allied to the South direction, from whence they (as spiritual guardian grandfathers) are beseeched to attend the prayers of the participants, and lend support and assistance to the supplication. Jimm From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 06:00:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:00:15 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <3FFD4DD7.4264.EB8B8F@localhost> Message-ID: I'm embarassed to say that I had confused the wa-form for an indefintie form, though, of course, it's the first person! (In my defense, in Dhegiha, the first person is *a*, but I know it's wa in Dakota.) I realized the mistake later and hadn't gotten around to correcting it. On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > John > I believe this verb thikte can take an object like wichas^a wan thikte > 'he murdered a man (not as in warfare)' > Bruce > > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > > > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > > > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > > > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > > > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > > > in the spot, ... > > > > Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized > > for their "indefinite object" form or forms? > > > > JEK > > > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Fri Jan 9 11:53:36 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:53:36 CST Subject: web space for scanned images Message-ID: On 7 Jan 2004, are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > Pat, > Hi. I'm the SSILA (ssila.org) website manager. What exactly are the > requirements of the host site you need? (How big, software, hardware > etc.) What kind of interface would you expect and how often would > things change if ever? > I am not in a position to offer the room as I just manage the site > and the exec committee would have to discuss it, but I'm curious and > might be able to help somehow. > Regards, > Ardis Eschenberg Hi Ardis, short answer: If I could have all the public domain siouan materials in one place, I'd say clear me a space of 15GB and expect it to suffice for two years. After that time I hope to have a more formal site established. I don't need any special server-side software or hardware. It's just images and client-side processed web pages. I'd need to have access to update it quite often. long answer: At this point any level of web support for digitized public domain resources would be great. My ideal would be an ftp space I could access via a password, so I could update regularly (or irregularly for that matter). Size? Whatever can be spared. If someone only wanted to post Iapi Oaye I'd like at least 2.5GB for the web-navigable version, and possibly another 2.0GB for the archived tif files so anyone can play with those too. I also have just under another GB of dakota resources in the public domain that anyone could post, and it would take probably another 1.5GB for the archived tifs of those. I don't know if you'd be interested in hosting algonquian materials too, but I'd say another 5GB currently with another 10GB (both web-navigable and archived tifs) coming in the next two years (so an ideal total of 30GB (15 without the tifs) for both siouan and algonquian public domain materials). As far as the future, I expect the digital public domain resources to increase at about 2GB per year (4GB per year if you include archived tif files). But my main concern right now is to make the public domain stuff I do have available. Software/hardware isn't an issue. Everything is going to be just image files and web pages. The whole project is stand alone, so no server is required and it can be run off a cd or offline. Pat From warr0120 at umn.edu Fri Jan 9 14:19:43 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:19:43 CST Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: QUESTIONS: I'd like to guess at how long it would take to convert the film, and how large the output would be. Can anyone tell me roughly what dimensions the original slips of the Dorsey files are? Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there were actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary material, so I guess individually. Plus if anyone (Mark?) knows the magnification that would help. Even knowing whether you'd use a 1(9-16x), 2(13-27), or 3(23-50x) lens on a reader would help. It will also help to know how clear the images tend to be. Are they very dark? It doesn't matter whether they're positive or negative, 'cause they'd be converted to positive anyway. But tif files (the best archival format with the best compression) only stores data about black pixels, so the lighter an image generally is, and the less fuzz and scratches, the smaller the image file. For instance, one of the other reasons (other than large size of the physical source) the iapi oaye files are so big is because the filmed images are sometimes pretty dark and almost all have very dense text - lots of black pixels. Images or drawings will be generally very large files, but it sounds like most of the slips are text. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE: A few tentative guesses for the 20,000 Dorsey Dhegiha slip images: If more towards dark with dense text per slip: 3x5 - around 200kb ea., 20,000x..2= 4GB, 6 CDs 5x7 - around 325kb ea., 20,000x..325= 6.5GB, 10 CDs 8.5x11 - around 500kb ea., 20,000x.5= 10GB, 15 CDs If more towards light with sparse text per slip: 3x5 - around 30kb ea., 20,000x.03= 600MB, 1 CD 5x7 - around 50kb ea., 20,000x.05= 1GB, 2 CDs 8.5x11 - around 75kb ea., 20,000x.075= 1.5GB, 3 CDs For comparison, let's pretend that Iapi Oaye had been 20,000 pages instead of 3,100. At an average of about 540kb per image it would take up 11,000 GB, about the same as my worst case scenario for 8.5x11 above. Iapi Oaye is a good worst case standard (though the Dorsey slips surely will be nowehere near this size). Since the originals of Iapi Oaye were very large with dense text, when it's squeezed to fill the image capture area of the reader it has one of the highest ratios of text per inch you'll find. My guess is that the Dorsey slips are not very dense text, especially since they're handwritten, so I'd say that it's come in at under 5 CDs at the extreme, and quite possibly it would be much smaller. Give me some answers to the questions above and I'll let you know. Web pages to navigate the images would be almost negligible. As far as scanning time: A standard canadian fiche has 14 rows of 14 images, and I can usually sit still long enough at a time to scan about 7 rows of one of those. That's about 2 hours (though I'll go check again soon). So about 100 scans in two hours (that rate the limits of the equipment, the two hours is my equipment's limit - no ergonomics in that library). 20,000 / 70 = 200 hours / 2 hours per session = 100 sessions / 4 sessions a week = 25 weeks / 4 weeks a month = 6 months. I would process the images as I scanned them (though what a challenge for a descriptive bibliography!), so It could definitely be done in less than a year without even pushing very hard. Which I wouldn't want to do, 'cause there's lots of other work to do too. So, I'd say it's all doable. Plus I could post the output online as I go so people could watch the progress. In case you're interested, with print sources I can do about 70 scans an hour when I've got rhythym. If the source is small enough (trade paperback or smaller) that I can fit two books on a 12.2x17.2 scanner, that's 280 pages an hour! But then I have to crop(manual), straighten(manual), compress(macro) and convert(macro) everything to jpg. All told I can scan and process about 3-4,000 pages a month without feeling too busy. About readers, the Minolta MS6000, their cheaper microfilm scanner, has a list price of around $5500. Canon MS300 = $5,900. Some other innovative but iffy systems come down as far as around $3,000. With those prices, plus the inevitable service plan and software, I really prefer the public access systems at the U's library here. I think there's 6 or 7 scanning stations at Wilson library. If we really want to get it done fast, the Donnegan Systems: M525 Microfilm Scanner, 100 images per minute (I'm only slightly slower, though check the math above), is listed at only $53,000. But it can't do fiche! (The system for fiche is only $59,900!) So, whoever wants to send me a check for an even $60,000, we can get to work. Or we can do it for free (well, the cost of postage to mail the film here). Anyone interested? Pat From jfu at centrum.cz Fri Jan 9 09:34:08 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:34:08 +0100 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > Anyway, we have to wonder if some cases of *wa- on terms for animates, > like wablus^ka or waglula, aren't relicts of this, especially when the > terms are (more or less) reconstructable. Just adding some more wa- animates that occur among the bird names: wa’phagica = yellow-headed blackbird wa- pha (head) gi (yellow/brown) ka (such) wa’blosha = red-winged blackbird wa- ablo’ (shoulder) sha (red) wa’bloska = white-winged blackbird wa- ablo’ (shoulder) ska (white) wagle’kshuN = wild turkey wa- glega (stripped) shuN (tail feathers) wakiN’yela = pigeon wa- kiNyaN (to fly) la (dim) wasna’snaheca = kingbird ?? Jan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 9 16:59:27 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:59:27 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Hi Pat, > Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there were > actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary > material, so I guess individually. I can answer this one, as I recently spent several months plowing through them for acculturation terms. No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, and it's probably high. For the OP dictionary part, we have 3 reels. Each reel is divided into segments of 10 frames. Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. Reel 1 has at least 148 segments; reel 2 has at least 175 segments; and reel 3 has at least 222 segments. So the 20,000 word estimate is built on a calculation like (148 + 175 + 222) * 10 * 4 = 21,800 words, minus some for frames with only 2 or 3 cards = 20,000 words. (There is usually one word per card, but sometimes more. Also, the cards are generally type-written, though there are many hand-written ones as well, which are not extremely legible. I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted alphabetically in the same deck. So although the handwritten cards are hard to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as they are only duplicates of words on the type-written cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, we should estimate about 10,000 words in the collection. Considering that many of these are just variously inflected forms of the same verb, a modern dictionary based on the collection would have much fewer basic words, possibly on the order of 5,000.) For total frames, I think we can figure about 5,500. Rory From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Fri Jan 9 17:40:45 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:40:45 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Aloha All, Additional comments about the JOD 8 reels. The images are black with white lettering (t.s. and m.s.) I used a Canon Canonfilmer 100 desktop planetary microfilmer with interchangeable recorder unit. I used 16mm-100ft. AGFA COPEX PAN A.H.U. PET 13 film. The reduction ratio was: 24x for up to 9x12-5/8" 32x for up to 11-1/2x16" 34x for up to 12-3/4x17-1/2" (if any of that makes sense) Rolls 1-3 (lexicon) are in cinema format. Rolls 4-8 are in comic strip format. The lens on my recycled microfilm reader is not marked for magnification. 1-1/2 frames appears on each screen. However, I move the carriage from side to side to focus directly on one card within a four card frame for best clarity. mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > > > > > Hi Pat, > > > Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there > were > > actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary > > material, so I guess individually. > > I can answer this one, as I recently spent several months > plowing through them for acculturation terms. > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total > number of words, and it's probably high. For the OP > dictionary part, we have 3 reels. Each reel is > divided into segments of 10 frames. Each frame > includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card > images. Reel 1 has at least 148 segments; reel 2 > has at least 175 segments; and reel 3 has at least > 222 segments. So the 20,000 word estimate is built > on a calculation like > > (148 + 175 + 222) * 10 * 4 = 21,800 words, > > minus some for frames with only 2 or 3 cards > > = 20,000 words. > > (There is usually one word per card, but sometimes > more. Also, the cards are generally type-written, > though there are many hand-written ones as well, > which are not extremely legible. I suspect Dorsey > originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then > typed them on another card, but all these cards > were kept and sorted alphabetically in the same > deck. So although the handwritten cards are hard > to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as > they are only duplicates of words on the type-written > cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented > by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, > we should estimate about 10,000 words in the > collection. Considering that many of these are > just variously inflected forms of the same verb, > a modern dictionary based on the collection would > have much fewer basic words, possibly on the order > of 5,000.) > > For total frames, I think we can figure about > 5,500. > > Rory From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Fri Jan 9 19:20:36 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:20:36 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists Message-ID: Hi gang: I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. How many have made word lists for a particular area? What I mean is to take a subject area and list all the terms associated. Examples: Various trades like carpentry (tools, woods used, hardware, commands [cut it, hit it, drive it in, cut it, lift, shove, plumb, level, square it etc). I have collected terms for hide work (tanning). Later, Louie From tleonard at prodigy.net Fri Jan 9 19:40:19 2004 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:40:19 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: If it's of any help, I ordered my 8 Dorsey reels with "reverse imaging", that is black letters on a white background. They were, in my opinion, far easier to read that way. Perhaps the reverse imaging would enhance the scanning process? Don't know. If so, I have them available. Last and lowest estimate I received from a document imaging company was $0.05 per image. Estimating about 25 images per foot x 100 ft x $0.05 x 8 rolls, that comes to about $125 per roll or $1000 total. From earlier e-mail on this subject, this might be on the high side.......it may be more like $75 - $100 per roll. Can we get 10 or 15 of us to spring for $100 each, or so, for CD's of all 8 rolls? The more of us that chip in ...the lower the price. Anyone interested? TML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark-Awakuni Swetland" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > Aloha All, > Additional comments about the JOD 8 reels. > > The images are black with white lettering (t.s. and m.s.) > > I used a Canon Canonfilmer 100 desktop planetary microfilmer with > interchangeable recorder unit. > > I used 16mm-100ft. AGFA COPEX PAN A.H.U. PET 13 film. > > The reduction ratio was: > 24x for up to 9x12-5/8" > 32x for up to 11-1/2x16" > 34x for up to 12-3/4x17-1/2" > (if any of that makes sense) > > Rolls 1-3 (lexicon) are in cinema format. Rolls 4-8 are in comic strip > format. > > The lens on my recycled microfilm reader is not marked for magnification. > 1-1/2 frames appears on each screen. However, I move the carriage from side > to side to focus directly on one card within a four card frame for best > clarity. > > mark > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > University of Nebraska > Anthropology/Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies > Bessey Hall 132 > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > 402-472-3455 > FAX 402-472-9642 > mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rory M Larson" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:59 AM > Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Pat, > > > > > Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there > > were > > > actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary > > > material, so I guess individually. > > > > I can answer this one, as I recently spent several months > > plowing through them for acculturation terms. > > > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total > > number of words, and it's probably high. For the OP > > dictionary part, we have 3 reels. Each reel is > > divided into segments of 10 frames. Each frame > > includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card > > images. Reel 1 has at least 148 segments; reel 2 > > has at least 175 segments; and reel 3 has at least > > 222 segments. So the 20,000 word estimate is built > > on a calculation like > > > > (148 + 175 + 222) * 10 * 4 = 21,800 words, > > > > minus some for frames with only 2 or 3 cards > > > > = 20,000 words. > > > > (There is usually one word per card, but sometimes > > more. Also, the cards are generally type-written, > > though there are many hand-written ones as well, > > which are not extremely legible. I suspect Dorsey > > originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then > > typed them on another card, but all these cards > > were kept and sorted alphabetically in the same > > deck. So although the handwritten cards are hard > > to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as > > they are only duplicates of words on the type-written > > cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented > > by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, > > we should estimate about 10,000 words in the > > collection. Considering that many of these are > > just variously inflected forms of the same verb, > > a modern dictionary based on the collection would > > have much fewer basic words, possibly on the order > > of 5,000.) > > > > For total frames, I think we can figure about > > 5,500. > > > > Rory > From warr0120 at umn.edu Fri Jan 9 19:47:55 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:47:55 CST Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Thanks Rory, Mark, and Tom That gives a real good idea of what we've got. If I were to do the digital work, I'd think I'll go with this ballpark guess: 5x7 - around 50kb ea., 20,000x.05= 1GB, 2 CDs > So although the handwritten cards are hard > to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as > they are only duplicates of words on the type-written > cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented > by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, > we should estimate about 10,000 words in the > collection. (Rory) Well, I'd be scanning everything in there. You don't want to redo work like this, so I prefer to get it all in one go and preserve as much integrity of the collection as possible. So the number of cards is what I'm looking at now, redundant or not. But once it's digitized, then it's all about the content and making it useful, while still having the reproduction (of the reproduction) of the collection to refer to, as it is physically structured. > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. (Rory) > The lens on my recycled microfilm reader is not marked for magnification. > 1-1/2 frames appears on each screen. However, I move the carriage from side > to side to focus directly on one card within a four card frame for best > clarity. (Mark) Well, if there are generally multiple cards per frame, then this will go way faster. Microfilm resolution gives about 200dpi output at max. When digitizing you don't zoom in on each card on the microfilm reader, you just take the whole frame as it fills the image capture area. Zooming in doesn't actually give you better quality, it just gives the same effect as scanning the whole frame at once and zooming in on the digitized images on the computer. > The images are black with white lettering (t.s. and m.s.) (Mark) > If it's of any help, I ordered my 8 Dorsey reels with "reverse imaging", that is black letters on a white background. They were, in my opinion, far easier to read that > way. Perhaps the reverse imaging would enhance the scanning process? Don't know. If so, I have them available. (Tom) Well, the images would be archived as positive to have the smallest file size, but if it's easier to read it as negative it could be converted to negative jpg's for display. It doesn't make any difference whether the film is positive or negative for scanning quality or image size. > For total frames, I think we can figure about > 5,500. I have now learned that my math skills when sleep deprived are rather fanciful. At least I used a calcumalator in figuring out the MB. Should have been 20000 images / 100 images per session = 200 sessions / 4 sessions per week = 50 weeks. Though now I'm more sleep deprived than earlier, so maybe I should redo this later. It's a good thing the slips weren't filmed individually! Well, I'll try again with the 5500 number: 5500 images / 100 images per session = 55 sessions / 4 session per week = 14 weeks / 4 weeks per month = under 4 mo. So I'd say for the Dhegiha film with around 20,000 images in 5,500 frames it would take four months to scan and process and we'd have the whole thing on 2 CDs. Pat From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 9 20:22:41 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:22:41 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists Message-ID: Hi Louie, I've been collecting acculturation terms for Euro-American technology in OP, mostly from the Dorsey dictionary and Fletcher and La Flesche. A restriction is that they must be a noun, so I don't have verb phrases to go with these. Of course, some of these can be deduced because the nouns themselves are built out of the verb phrases. I wouldn't have anything on hide-tanning, because I assume that technology is basically native. But I do have a few carpentry terms if you're interested. And yes, I have been segregating these terms into techno-categories in the way you describe. I'd like to expand on this in the future, and would be particularly interested in comparing between MVS languages. So I'm very interested in hearing about what you are doing! Rory "Louis Garcia" hoop.cc> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Siouan word lists owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/09/2004 01:20 PM Please respond to siouan Hi gang: I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. How many have made word lists for a particular area? What I mean is to take a subject area and list all the terms associated. Examples: Various trades like carpentry (tools, woods used, hardware, commands [cut it, hit it, drive it in, cut it, lift, shove, plumb, level, square it etc). I have collected terms for hide work (tanning). Later, Louie From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 20:27:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:27:16 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > wa?phagica = yellow-headed blackbird > wa- pha (head) gi (yellow/brown) ka (such) Assuming that what I see as ? is an accent mark, then I suspect this is wa-a-pha-gi-ka, with a 'on'. > wagle?kshuN = wild turkey > wa- glega (stripped) shuN (tail feathers) Not glex? > wasna?snaheca = kingbird > ?? Perhaps onomatopoeic? Especially given =hec^a 'be such a one'. I'll see if I can locate the call. From vstabler at esu1.org Fri Jan 9 22:36:30 2004 From: vstabler at esu1.org (Vida Stabler) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:36:30 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists Message-ID: UmoNhoN Nation Public Schools, UmoNhoN Language Center, has some categorized word lists. We document daily so when a new word arrises (not in Stabler/Swetland Dictionary) we have a folders to document. Household objects would be an example. Also, our Elders create new words which get added into the appropriate folder. I too would be interested in knowing what other categories exist. V.Stabler ULC Louis Garcia wrote: > Hi gang: > I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. > How many have made word lists for a particular area? > What I mean is to take a subject area and list all the terms associated. > Examples: Various trades like carpentry (tools, woods used, hardware, > commands [cut it, hit it, drive it in, cut it, lift, shove, plumb, level, > square it etc). > I have collected terms for hide work (tanning). > Later, > Louie From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 23:53:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:53:13 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > and it's probably high. The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction. It's been a while since I've been able to consult the microfilm. The CU Library microfilm facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in Minnesota. > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > alphabetically in the same deck. Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of notes and slips as needing to be typed. What I do remember is that somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax. It looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form" cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form actually existed and, if so, what it might mean. This was only one of his discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number. I couldn't say what percentage they might have been. I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that and I don't have the file handy. I remember immediately concluding that the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem. The slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the same slip. Different slips may be different derivations from the same underlying stem. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 23:59:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:59:25 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <007301c3d6e8$6c061300$efa83841@tleonard> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Tom Leonard wrote: > Can we get 10 or 15 of us to spring for $100 each, or so, for CD's of all 8 > rolls? The more of us that chip in ...the lower the price. Anyone > interested? I'd be willing to chip in, though I'd like to investigate doing it through Pat first. I admit to having some qualms about asking him to donate several working months of his time to the project unremunerated. I also have a copy of the reels, not currently being used much, as I've indicated, and I would be willing to lend them out for the project. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 10 00:04:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:04:08 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <200401091947.i09JltkE025493@trojan.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > Well, I'd be scanning everything in there. You don't want to redo work like > this, so I prefer to get it all in one go and preserve as much integrity of > the collection as possible. I agree with this. The 20K estimates deal with the largest component of the collection, the C/egiha slip file. A considerable number of other things, including some other smaller slip files, are included in the full set of reels. And, for what it's worth, Mark didn't exhaust the NAA Dorsey materials, though he did copy a substantial portion of them. Incidentally, I suppose it would be tactful of us to let the NAA in on what we're thinking of doing. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 10 00:27:32 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:32 -0700 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <00c801c3d592$de31c110$68430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > Is it still available, perhaps as a reprint somewhere? Is this the best and > most recent Winn/ Hochank grammar? This is probably the most complete and readable and the only one in print. I don't know of any reprint copy, but some libraries have copies, and xeroxes are available. I've never checked to see if it is also available from UMI. That might be interesting to do. Marten's dissertation is available, but it in a sort of morphological generative format, and a bit hard to read. It's worth looking at, though, because it is very explicit about morpheme order and so has information on details Lipkind didn't even think about. Sussman's dissertation is also around, though *not* available from UMI. It is supposed to be good, but I haven't worked with it much and don't have a copy. Lipkind's orthography is complex and awkward as far as marking length. He discusses only phonology and morphology, including enclitic complexes under the latter category. His terminology is occasionally somewhat odd and old-fashioned. He doesn't discuss the reflexives of second conjugation (syncopating) verbs, and a glance through Miner's Field Lexicon suggests that in so doing he missed a rather complex corner of the morphology. He has nothing much to say about the syntax or anything above the word level. I think some of his morpheme identifications fail because of this. JE From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Jan 10 05:02:09 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:02:09 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: John wrote: >> I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed >> them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted >> alphabetically in the same deck. > > Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of Well, I haven't looked at them for about a year myself, but I seem to recall quite a lot of handwritten notes that matched type-written ones elsewhere. At any rate, I'm sure I didn't have to puzzle out handwritten words that were unique, except for a few miscellaneous ones at the very beginning. Mark is planning to look up some things on the reels Sunday afternoon. Perhaps he can set us straight here. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/09/2004 05:53 PM Please respond to siouan On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > and it's probably high. The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction. It's been a while since I've been able to consult the microfilm. The CU Library microfilm facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in Minnesota. > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > alphabetically in the same deck. Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of notes and slips as needing to be typed. What I do remember is that somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax. It looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form" cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form actually existed and, if so, what it might mean. This was only one of his discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number. I couldn't say what percentage they might have been. I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that and I don't have the file handy. I remember immediately concluding that the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem. The slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the same slip. Different slips may be different derivations from the same underlying stem. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 10 07:09:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:09:20 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > > wasna?snaheca = kingbird > > ?? > > Perhaps onomatopoeic? Especially given =hec^a 'be such a one'. I'll see > if I can locate the call. Stokes, Donald W. 1979. A Guide to the Behavior of Common Birds. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown, and Co. p. 122, "Auditory Displays, Kitter-call, kitterkitterkitter A rapidly repeated two-part phrase, much like the written description. ..." Note that Buechel lists sna' 'to ring, sound', snasna' 'to ring, to rattle'. I'd deduce *wasna'sna 'rattle' > wasna'sna=hec^a 'the one that's like a rattle'. JEK From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Jan 11 03:17:25 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:25 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: [Gentium] Update #2 Message-ID: Many of you may be on the SIL and/or Gentium mailing-lists, but for those who aren't, the links below, though not referring directly to Siouan, are very interesting. Alan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Gentium] Update #2 - Linux version available, updated FAQ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:03:04 +0000 From: Gentium-Announce List To: Gentium-Announce Gentium-Announce List Update #2 - Linux version available, updated FAQ - - - - - - - - Dear friends of Gentium, Three pieces of good news: - A release of Gentium for Linux is now available thanks to the excellent work of Nicolas Spalinger. - The Gentium FAQ has been expanded to include almost all types of questions we usually get. Check there before writing us, as you will likely get an answer much sooner! - The LISA newsletter recently published an interview with me about Gentium and other multilingual topics. It can be found at LISA's web site: http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/4.3/gaultney.html - The Gentium site now has a simpler URL All of this can be found at http://scripts.sil.org/gentium Victor Gaultney Gentium /at/ sil.org From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Sun Jan 11 17:25:24 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:25:24 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Aloha all, 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. e.g. JOD3:198 ms card wedajiaditaN (Wdj) ts card wedajiatataN (Wdj) WHERE THE PREVIOUS D HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A T MARKED WITH AN UNDER-X Perhaps there is a formula that John or others have noticed that JOD used when going from ms to ts that includes that d=>t(x) shift. Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication". While my particular reader screen shows 1-1/2 frames that may not be the case universally. I have to center the upper and lower frames for best focus (with tri-focals and a kinked neck) Ideally, a single card per image would allow for maximum flexibility in sorting, deleting, etc. However, I would not impose that obsessive compulsive approach on someone other than myself. So the efficient comporomise that I would recommend is that we adopt a single frame per image approach. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland University of Nebraska mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > > > > > John wrote: > >> I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > >> them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > >> alphabetically in the same deck. > > > > Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him > > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of > > Well, I haven't looked at them for about a year myself, > but I seem to recall quite a lot of handwritten notes > that matched type-written ones elsewhere. At any rate, > I'm sure I didn't have to puzzle out handwritten words > that were unique, except for a few miscellaneous ones > at the very beginning. > > Mark is planning to look up some things on the reels > Sunday afternoon. Perhaps he can set us straight here. > > Rory > > > > > Koontz John E > o.edu> cc: > Sent by: Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > owner-siouan at lists.c > olorado.edu > > > 01/09/2004 05:53 PM > Please respond to > siouan > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > > and it's probably high. > > The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch > of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches > in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they > counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. > > > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. > > I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction. It's been a while since > I've been able to consult the microfilm. The CU Library microfilm > facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in > Minnesota. > > > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > > alphabetically in the same deck. > > Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of > notes and slips as needing to be typed. What I do remember is that > somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set > of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on > knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax. It > looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a > potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form" > cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form > actually existed and, if so, what it might mean. This was only one of his > discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such > cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number. I > couldn't say what percentage they might have been. > > I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came > up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that > and I don't have the file handy. I remember immediately concluding that > the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that > count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem. The > slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the > same slip. Different slips may be different derivations from the same > underlying stem. > > > > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 12 00:16:51 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:16:51 CST Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: On 11 Jan 2004, Mark-Awakuni Swetland wrote: > Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody > might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication". There's a very important thing to notice when dealing with unpaginated or multple-original-page-per-frame microform. I consider in this case, and really with any microform manuscript sources, that in digitization, you're actually working with two different sources. An original source and a reproduction of it. First, you want the content of the original (the writing) with its physical structure (the separation of writing by layout and paging). So you want here to have each card as 1 image. Along with this you need to write a good description of the structure of the original with what information you have via the film. If you have access to the original documents you can do an even more thorough description of the collection. Second, you have the film itself which may serve as the only (reasonably) available identifier of the overall organization of the pages (or cards), so in this case you want 1 image per frame of film. You here need to do a good description of the film itself: sequence of frames, contents of multiple reels, info about the filming, etc. I wasn't convinced of this until AFTER scanning Iapi Oaye, so soon I'll have to get both the film and fiche versions again and do a real good description of them. But learning by trying's the only way to make it sink in. For me anyway. So from now on... > While my particular reader screen shows 1-1/2 frames that may not be the > case universally. I have to center the upper and lower frames for best focus > (with tri-focals and a kinked neck) The readers here at the U of MN have handled every fiche and film I've tried. The Minolta readers have the three different lenses and can display the full frame of any film from 9x-50x. I don't know of any film that's outside this range in common use. Yet. > Ideally, a single card per image would allow for maximum flexibility in > sorting, deleting, etc. However, I would not impose that obsessive > compulsive approach on someone other than myself. So the efficient > comporomise that I would recommend is that we adopt a single frame per image > approach. I don't mind sharing work, so I wouldn't mind just doing the scanning, cropping, and straightening of the 1 frame per scan images. Then I can send along the images to anyone else to separate, crop, and straighten as 1 card per image. But I'll send along software to try too. The stuff I use is much better for these functions than any imaging program I've tried, Adobe or otherwise. My whole project is focused on compartmentalized processing steps so each little step you take on the digital path produces something useful, and each step could be done by a different person. The cooperative approach is the way it should be. In response to John K. mentioning concern about asking me to dedicate months to this project... I'm offering. This kind of work IS my work now. Not my paid work, but MY work, what I like spending my time doing and feel very morally motivated to do. In addition, I think that making the conversion to a digital research environment should become normal for people in their own fields, not for specialized industries. Academia got hooked on commerical publishing too much, rather than including the cost of publishing in the budget of DOING academic work, it became something external to academia and made it dependent on a commericalized industry for a voice. That problem is reaching an extreme with the international publishing giants and the academic journal racket. To spend $1,000 or more now on digitization of one source probably to the exlusion of others, and getting comfortable with always hiring out would be a sad direction to go, I think. For now there's not enough people capable of doing the full digitization themselves, but this is how you can set precedents. One main goal in doing this work for the last two years is to set up a replicable process that anyone anywhere studying anything can be trained on: standards, processing steps, equipment, data encoding, interface design...at the lowest cost possible in time and money. But beyond that there's also the great american fear and suspicion of anyone who offers to help and doesn't want anything material or monetary in exchange. I've already had many people tell me that nobody will want the results of my work if I'm not charging anything for it. There's some truth to it, but people seem very capable of converting it into productive guilt. I'm not saying these are your thoughts, John, but it's an important issue to bring up. As far as an obsessive compulsive behaviors in linguistics, I think that might be par for the course. And for squirrels. Pat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 12 14:52:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:52:02 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <005b01c3d867$e609f830$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Mark-Awakuni Swetland wrote: > e.g. JOD3:198 > ms card > wedajiaditaN (Wdj) > > ts card > wedajiatataN (Wdj) > WHERE THE PREVIOUS D HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A T MARKED WITH AN UNDER-X > > Perhaps there is a formula that John or others have noticed that JOD used > when going from ms to ts that includes that d=>t(x) shift. I think these may be two forms wedaz^ia=di=thaN and wedaz^ia=tta=thaN, both 'from elsewhere'. Both =di=thaN and =tta=thaN mean 'from' and occur in the texts. These are apparently derived from =di 'at' and =tta 'to'. (Though with verbs of motion better glosses are '(up) to' and 'toward'.) I assume there is some sort of hard to gloss difference in the two 'froms', like, maybe 'from right at' vs. 'from near' or 'from there to here' vs. 'from there toward here', but this fine distinction is not preserved in the English. > Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody > might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication". I agree with that. From vstabler at esu1.org Mon Jan 12 17:53:00 2004 From: vstabler at esu1.org (Vida Stabler) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:53:00 -0600 Subject: Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: The UmoNhoN Language Center will be able to contribute something. Who is taking the lead on keeping track of the money contributed and money needed??? I like where this is going. V. Stabler Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob wrote: > > If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, > > converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would > contribute his > > financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw > dictionaries > > and wouldn't need those reels.) > > Ditto here, and also for the Kansa, Quapaw and Osage > material, which I don't have. > > Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 12 18:24:34 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:24:34 -0600 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. In-Reply-To: <4002DEFC.481D9A4D@esu1.org> Message-ID: I think I have a hard copy of all the Osage from this collection. But the advantages of having the material on CD seem to be important. I have two (perhaps naive) questions: 1. Since the materials will be just scanned and probably no OCR will work, would we somehow be able to search the materials more easily than paper copies of same? (At the very least perhaps via cataloguing tracks laid in the CDs?) 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper copies? (Many of the typed Osage slips from this collection, for example, are too blurry to read in my paper copy.) If the answer to either of these question is positive, then it would be worth it to contribute funds to have the material on CDs and acquire a set of CDs, even if we already have a paper version of the material, it seems to me. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Vida Stabler Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:53 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Microfilm to CD conversion. The UmoNhoN Language Center will be able to contribute something. Who is taking the lead on keeping track of the money contributed and money needed??? I like where this is going. V. Stabler Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob wrote: > > If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, > > converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would > contribute his > > financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw > dictionaries > > and wouldn't need those reels.) > > Ditto here, and also for the Kansa, Quapaw and Osage > material, which I don't have. > > Rory From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jan 12 18:40:28 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:40:28 -0000 Subject: mircofilm digitization In-Reply-To: <200401052120.i05LKYJ5001885@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Pat Interesting to see that you are working on the Iapi Oaye. It is an interesting collection of things. There are a few pages of it here at the British Museum Library. Also in our library somewhere, but lost, there is said to be a translation of the Pilgrim's Progress into Dakota. Yours Bruce Date sent: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:20:34 CST Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Pat Warren To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: mircofilm digitization > Yes, it's all possible. I've spent the last two years working on digitizing > dakota and ojibwe texts from both print and microfilm. I just completed > converting Iapi Oaye from microfilm to a web-navigable format. The images > are archived as 500 dpi (actually better resolution than necessary for > microfilm, but necessary for ocr of printed materials) tiff but converted > to jpg for web page display. If anyone wants to see the Iapi Oaye cds let > me know. Out of the 70 years it was published I'm missing less than ten > pages (about 3100 images total. I'm hoping to distribute them more openly > this spring when I get better at working with xslt processeors and can make > the web pages work in more browser versions. As of right now, all the data > and web pages are in xml so at this point it only works in internet > explorer 6.0 on a pc. It might work on IE for mac too but I haven't > checked. > > The University of Minnesota Wilson Library has all their microfilm print > stations hooked up to computers now with capturing software that can send > what you see on the reader to a printer or to a file. The 35mm film > scanners and slide scanners don't work with microfilm. You have to have a > reader with a paralell port output and software for requesting the image. > The equipment to do all this is still too pricy for personal purchase in my > opinion, so I'm happy to use the public equipment. My focus has been > setting up standards and methods that anyone can replicate if they have the > equipment. I work with great, trainable OCR software (Abbyy Finereader > 7.0). I did lots of testing to find out what resolution you need to get the > best results (500dpi), the best archiving format (tiff for black and white > documents, 300 dpi jpg for greyscale or color). > > If you're interested in jumping into a digitizing project, let me know. > This is what I'm committing much of my time to now. Don't waste time with > grants and don't spend money on overpriced digitizing services. The quality > of most of the digitized material I've seen so far, like those from the LOC > and National Library of Canada, are actually really poor quality and > consistency and their interfaces are pretty unimpressive and confusing. I'm > interested in making all these materials available to anyone as low cost as > possible. > > I posted a few of the images from Iapi Oaye so you can see the output. > Here's the URIs: > > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_01.jpg > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_02.jpg > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_03.jpg > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_04.jpg > > They're very large images so it may be a slow download at home. > > Let me know if you want the current (IE 6.0 for Windows only) version of > the iapi oaye cds (only images, it'll probably be a few years before I've > got it converted to text, or maybe someone else will do it). It took 4 cds > to fit it all, but keep in mind that the images are very very large. I > chose to make them huge since the originals were newspaper sized, and I > want it to be easily readable. With normal 8.5 by 11 or smaller you'd be > able to fit a lot more onto a cd. I have lots of other samples to of > digitized print sources, and a few dissertations I got from fiche. In the > next few months I'll be posting a list of what I've got. I hope to find > some nice person at a university who can offer server space to distrbute > the files so people can burn their own cds. I've got a lot of public domain > sources digitized (though only a couple converted to full text and it'll be > a while before I get the programming done to make those useful), though > full text versions are my main goal. Here's some of what I've got: > > Dakotan: > -most of the BIA's indian reader series in lakota (Emil Afraid of Hawk and > Ann Nolan Clark) > -buechel's grammar, bible history > -deloria's dakota texts > -dorsey's omaha ponca letters > -hunflavy's dakota nyelv (hungarian) > -hunt's bible history > -pilling's biblio > -rigg's grammar, dictionary, 1852 combo > > Ojibwe: > -both baraga grammars, both dictionaries > -belcourt's sauteux grammar > -cuoq's grammar, dictionary > -jones' ojibwe texts > -lemoine's dictionary > -pilling's biblio > -verwyst's exercises > -wilson's ojebway grammar > > I think now I have total around 25-30,000 pages of Dakota material and > 15-20,000 pages of Ojibwe material scanned and useable in my nice web-page > format. I'm focusing now on encoding full text versions so they're > integrable. Now I'm coding full text versions of the Pilling and Pentland > algonquian bibliographies and finding ways to combine them in a useful > format. Next will be practicing combining a couple of dictionaries. Then > there's the possibility of hooking it all together with texts linked to > dictionaries and vice versa, having citations and bibliographies linked to > digital versions of the original sources... endless possibility that should > save lots of research time. There's a lot to this work, and I could go on > for hours. > > I hope that sometime this year everything I've digitized (the public domain > stuff) will be freely available to all. I'm am very interested in working > with others on digitizing projects. I can give you a complete list of > equipment, software, standards, and methods I use if you like. But I'm also > open to the possibility of just having microfilm sent here for me to scan. > I'm fast, I do good work, and I'd hate to see people spend time and money > for low quality output. I enjoy the digitizing work, and from there I can > set people up to train and run the ocr software and proof full text > versions themselves. I know that in the near future this work will be an > essential part of research. The best part is, if you do a good job, once > you digitize something you can make it immediately available to everyone > for free, and then every time anyone wants to work with the material, there > it is! Some of the people here at the U of MN have loved having all the > Ojibwe grammars on one cd and all the Ojibwe dicitonaries on another. It > saves a lot of time, and makes things available that weren't really all > that available before. > > Pat Warren > > From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Mon Jan 12 21:34:48 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:34:48 -0600 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: Pat: It seems the Dhegihanist have the day. Nevertheless, the microfilm that I have for Dorsey are from his much smaller contribution on Jiwere/ Chiwere. I also have film from the Gordon Marsch collection. The original was one reel, I believe, but I have cut into sections for easier access to various section: stories, verbs, etc. I do not believe that the Siouan Archives in Boulder [CU] have a hard copy of Marsch MS. So like Carolyn, I am interested in having the material on CD. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. I have two > (perhaps naive) questions: > > 1. Since the materials will be just scanned and probably no OCR will work, > would we somehow be able to search the materials more easily than paper > copies of same? (At the very least perhaps via cataloguing tracks laid in > the CDs?) > > 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper copies? > (Many of the typed Osage slips from this collection, for example, are too > blurry to read in my paper copy.) > From are2 at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 13 05:13:40 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:13:40 -0500 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <001301c3d55d$f1dcf390$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: Hey Mark! I got your useful finding aid! Thanks! I copied it for the ULC and also for NICC (which I'll keep til we get into a new building). I'm sorry to have missed you Friday. Hope you had a great trip. Thanks for the aid! -Ardis From warr0120 at umn.edu Tue Jan 13 05:50:11 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:50:11 CST Subject: mircofilm digitization Message-ID: Bruce, > Also in our library somewhere, but lost, there > is said to be a translation of the Pilgrim's Progress into Dakota. > Yours > Bruce The MN HIstorical Society has a copy of that. It's titled "Cante teca." Stephen Riggs is listed as translator. 277p. Pat From warr0120 at umn.edu Tue Jan 13 07:07:16 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:07:16 CST Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: Carolyn and Jimm, Short: 1. Even 25-50% ocr accuracy saves time. 2. By doing a good bibliographic description and generating web pages, contents pages, and indexes from it, even just scanned images are more accessible than a printed source. 3. Scans from microfilm are better (higher resolution) than copies from microfilm. Copies from paper might be better than scans from film. Scans from film allow image manipulation with imaging software that can make them more legible. Digitalization preserves content that can be lost as original sources decay, so sometimes the film is better than the original. 4. Dorsey's Dhegiha slips are only one source. Invest energy in the process, not money in the service. Long: > 1. Since the materials will be just scanned and probably no OCR will work, (Carolyn) Having not yet seen the film, I can't say how well ocr would work. I always hold out hope and prefer to try it, and with ocr, even 25% or 50% accuracy saves a lot of time, I've found. > would we somehow be able to search the materials more easily than paper > copies of same? (At the very least perhaps via cataloguing tracks laid in > the CDs?) (Carolyn) The way I do my work is to write a very detailed descriptive bibliography of the source I'm digitizing. In going from microform to digital I write two: one describing the structure (as much as possible) of the original document(s), and another describing the structure of the microform itself. I then create web pages for the images from the source, one page per image with navigation buttons so you can flip through the images in order, one page forward or backward, or ten pages forward or backward (but the buttons only appear if the bibliography says there IS a +10 page, etc.). There's also a table of contents web page (accessible from any individual page) and the contents are generated automatically from the bibliographies, written in xml. For microform I can also set up two versions of web pages. For a film like the Dorsey Dhegiha slips, I'd create one web version to represent the original source, with one slip per page. Then I'd create another web version to represent the film itself, with one frame of microfilm per page. So in a way I'd consider myself to be creating a reproduction of two different sources at the same time, though one is noted as a itself derived from a reproduction. I didn't do this with iapi oaye because there was always only one original page per microfilm frame, but I would still want the two different bibliographies available. Even when you're dealing with large, unstructured documents you can easily create many ways to organize the contents page to make it more accessible. As long as you do a real good bibliographical description and have solid naming conventions for files. As an example, when I did a bibliographical description of Pentland and Wolfart's Bibliography of algonquian linguistics (1982), my xml file lists where logical sections as well as physical sections begin and end. So the order of pages is there, the order of general sections like front matter, introductory matter, the bibliography itself, and index matter. But I also record where the letters of the alphabet start and end in the bibliography, as though they were chapters. Even though they're not explicity marked, the bibliography is organized alphabetically by author. In making explicit in the bibliography this type of latent data content you automatically make the images, even without conversion (yet) to text, way more accessible (though without a laptop not as all-terrain) than the book. > 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper copies? (Carolyn) Probably, because most people's copies probably come from the film, and the scans from the film would come at a higher resolution than copies from the film. Though microfilming introduces lots of noise, and is pretty low resolution (200dpi versus the 500dpi that I use), so copies from the original might (depending on the copier used) end up better quality than scanning from the microfilm reproduction. And if you make copies from the paper after the micrfilm was produced, you may miss out if the paper has decayed in some way. But one option that digitizing offers that's good for mandwritten materials is the endless array of modifications you can do in imaging programs that can help you see better what's there. As one example, In scanning the new edition of Buechel's dictionary the back of the pages were often showing through because of the paper quality. So I scanned it all in grayscale. Since the back of the page showed through lighter than the printing on the page being scanned, it was recorded as grey while the text on the scanned back was scanned as black. When I then saved the image as black and white, it just left out the grey and the "bleed-through" disappeared. This has now worked well with older books that the same problem in scanning, and even for some actual ink bleed-through. So the scan of the page does sometimes turn out more legible than the page itself. This doesn't work with microform though (not yet anyway), because the hardware itself only sees in monochrome (black only). But other imaging software modifications might make some images easier to read (but these modifications wouldn't be done to the archived images, you'd have to do it yourself). > If the answer to either of these question is positive, then it would be > worth it to contribute funds to have the material on CDs and acquire a set > of CDs, even if we already have a paper version of the material, it seems to > me. (Carolyn) > It seems the Dhegihanist have the day. Nevertheless, the microfilm that I > have for Dorsey are from his much smaller contribution on Jiwere/ Chiwere. (Jimm) Don't get too excited about the Dorsey Dhegiha slips. It's only one source. Whether or not other people realize it, full digitization is going to happen. Once you actually see the whole process, from scanning to full hyperlinked, combined, searchable texts, it's very clear. Spend money on it if you want. But if you feel compelled to spend money, why not invest in the process rather than just paying for a service? Don't be too shortsighted on this and waste time, money, and excitement. There's a lot of stuff that should be done. My idea of complete digitization: bibliography, images, plain text, coded text, various display options, and derivative works. If people invest in the process of how to go about this, and how to do this INSIDE the field, with very little money involved, this can make cooperation much easier. Let people with different interests, skills, time, and degrees of compulsion do what they want, but combine the work together in a well designed, public process. But you have to start investing in that internal process sometime, even if it means just investing your interest and curiosity there, instead of investing money outside the field. Pat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 13 07:32:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:32:16 -0700 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. In-Reply-To: <200401130707.i0D77GpG007213@challenge.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper > copies? (Carolyn) > > Probably, because most people's copies probably come from the film, and the > scans from the film would come at a higher resolution than copies from the > film. I don't know about Carolyn's copies, but I know Bob's were made by hand by the NAA staff. They actually overlaid the blank areas at the bottom of slips with the next slip wherever feasible, to reduce the copying charge. (I'm not quite sure of the logic of this, as the it seems like more work, and fees are usually dominated by labor costs.) The NAA is not especially invested in microfilming (unlike the APS) and I believe Mark's activities represented at the time the major instance of microfilming of the NAA holdings. I believe they can still make no use of the microfilm themselves and even go so far as to lend it out for the making of copies, a matter of potential concern. I may have misunderstood some of my sources on this, and my information may be out of date. The folks at the NAA seem, however, to be sadly underfunded. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jan 13 12:33:22 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:33:22 -0000 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes the sort of thing that Iktomi would have invented no doubt Bruce Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:42:38 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: More regarding "wa" > With wablus^ka and waglu=la we are dealing with a PS situation, though a > very complex one. There is a family of stems that refer to "vermin" or > something of that ilk, and cover a range of arthropods, mollusks, > annelids, reptiles, and amphibians. The general form is something like > wa-CrV(S), often extended with -ka. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jan 13 12:35:07 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:35:07 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: easily done. Lakota having at least three wa- prefixes that I know of Bruce Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:00:15 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: animate wa- > I'm embarassed to say that I had confused the wa-form for an indefintie > form, though, of course, it's the first person! (In my defense, in > Dhegiha, the first person is *a*, but I know it's wa in Dakota.) I > realized the mistake later and hadn't gotten around to correcting it. > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > John > > I believe this verb thikte can take an object like wichas^a wan thikte > > 'he murdered a man (not as in warfare)' > > Bruce > > > > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > > > > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > > > > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > > > > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > > > > in the spot, ... > > > > > > Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized > > > for their "indefinite object" form or forms? > > > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 13 13:38:25 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:38:25 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <1073970820.40037e841f0e2@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Ditto, Mark. Thanks for the moderately useful finding aid! Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of are2 at buffalo.edu Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:14 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Hey Mark! I got your useful finding aid! Thanks! I copied it for the ULC and also for NICC (which I'll keep til we get into a new building). I'm sorry to have missed you Friday. Hope you had a great trip. Thanks for the aid! -Ardis From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jan 13 13:38:12 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:38:12 -0000 Subject: mircofilm digitization In-Reply-To: <200401130550.i0D5oB2c012331@firefox.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Pat. Have you seen it. How many pages? Bruce Date sent: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:50:11 CST Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Pat Warren To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: mircofilm digitization > Bruce, > > > Also in our library somewhere, but lost, there > > is said to be a translation of the Pilgrim's Progress into Dakota. > > Yours > > Bruce > > The MN HIstorical Society has a copy of that. It's titled "Cante teca." > Stephen Riggs is listed as translator. 277p. > > Pat > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Tue Jan 13 14:11:41 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:11:41 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists reply Message-ID: Rory: Yes, send me OP list for carpentry. I teach carpentry here and want to use these terms for signs and verbal comands. By looking at your OP nouns i can begin to set up my own list. By doing these task related word lists, one discovers all the terms missing in a language. I have also discovered terms that have been mistranslated. My hide tanning list is on paper. Later, Louie From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:15:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:15:24 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: The estimate may be high, but a word of warning. The estimates for Dorsey's Quapaw and Kansa lexical files were both low by a fifth. Both were at least a thousand entries higher than the number listed. My guess is that the estimates were made by Ray DeMallie back about 1970 when he cataloged the Dorsey Collection for the Smithsonian. After initial measurements, it's probably based on the number of boxes of slips. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > > and it's probably high. > > The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch > of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches > in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they > counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:18:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:18:24 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: > Incidentally, I suppose it would be tactful of us to let the NAA in on > what we're thinking of doing. Are we sure that wouldn't be like kicking a sleeping dog? Best to ask someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the photo-duplication bureaucracy there. Maybe Ives? Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:31:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:31:20 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: 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 Tue Jan 13 16:40:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:40:29 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: <4003E592.2763.564EB32@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Yes the sort of thing that Iktomi would have invented no doubt Dorsey refers to a tradition that Is^tiniNkhe invented the bow. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:44:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:44:00 -0600 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: > I may have misunderstood some of my sources on this, and my information > may be out of date. The folks at the NAA seem, however, to be sadly > underfunded. I just talked with Ives about this last weekend and they're operating on a three-day week now. Underfunded would seem to be an understatement. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 13 17:02:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:02:59 -0700 Subject: Siouan word lists reply In-Reply-To: <005001c3d9df$2ac517c0$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: The new Lexicography list has been discussing semantic domains somewhat peripherally. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 21:45:11 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:45:11 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) about Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, that in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject prefixes. I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very strange indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active subject pronominals exclusively. So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals of active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? Bob From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Tue Jan 13 23:27:47 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:27:47 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) about > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, that > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject prefixes. > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very strange > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active subject > pronominals exclusively. > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals of > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > Bob > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jan 13 23:44:10 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:44:10 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <007501c3da2c$e6a0a610$73430945@JIMM> Message-ID: This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "R. Rankin" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM > Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) > about > > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, > that > > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject > prefixes. > > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very > strange > > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active > subject > > pronominals exclusively. > > > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals > of > > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 14 00:11:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:11:04 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For what it's worth, I've argued that the -hki(k)- reflexive/reciprocal is an incorporated co-verb 'be with'. I forget where I delivered the paper, but, of course, I still have it. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has > argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a > direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross > linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's > odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 14 03:14:26 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:14:26 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists reply Message-ID: Hi Louie, > Rory: > Yes, send me OP list for carpentry. > I teach carpentry here and want to use these terms for signs and verbal > comands. > By looking at your OP nouns i can begin to set up my own list. > By doing these task related word lists, one discovers all the terms missing > in a language. > I have also discovered terms that have been mistranslated. > My hide tanning list is on paper. > Later, > Louie Here's what I've got out of the Dorsey dictionary which I have classed under "Woodworking". It's as is-- I seem to have misplaced whatever notes I got from vetting it with our speakers. The parsing and interpretations are mainly my own, though the leading gloss is generally Dorsey's. A few words are listed as specifically Omaha or Ponka, but most don't give any such indication. I've reversed the gloss to go from English category to OP word, which throws in a little confusion, and I've listed the words by semantic association (as makes sense to me) rather than alphabetically. I'd be interested in advice from Dhegihanists and comparativists on these, and certainly also in comparison terms from Dakota and other MVS languages. Please let me know if this is of any use to you. I agree with you about the value of terms like these in bringing out many verbs that are otherwise easily overlooked. I hope I can get to see your hide tanning paper someday. Some of the terms in it might help to elucidate some of the ones I'm still finding obscure in OP. I have lots of other categories too, including words about house structure and furniture. I'm not sure exactly how far "carpentry" extends for you! Best, Rory -------------------------------------------------------------- OP WOODWORKING TERMS axe maN'zephe metal-sharp(?) "sharp metal"? (I'm not sure if the p is aspirated or not, and would appreciate advice on this and on my tentative "sharp" translation.) hatchet maNzephe-z^iN'ga axe-little "little axe" axe handle maN'zephe-i'ba axe-projection(?) base of an axe head maN'zephe-ppa-hi'de axe-head-bottom (I didn't notice it in the dictionary, but this word implies that the word for axe-head is maN'zephe-ppa.) "adze" z^aN-i'-ga-goN wood-INST-IMPULSE-trim(?) "wood-trimmer" adze proper we'?e-z^aNi'gagoN hoe-adze broad-ax maN'zephe-z^aNi'gagoN axe-adze (The last three seem to imply a sharp-edged head at the end of a handle, which is swung to rough-trim lumbar. If the plane of the blade is parallel with the plane of the swinging handle, as with an axe, then it is an "axe wood-trimmer", or broad-ax. If the plane of the blade is perpendicular to the plane of the swinging handle, as with a hoe, then it is a "hoe wood-trimmer". In English, we distinguish axes from adzes in this manner, but have no general term for a "wood-trimmer".) shavings z^aN-ba'-s?u [Omaha] wood-PUSH-plane(?) "wood shavings"? plank, boards, lumber z^aN-bdha'ska wood-flat "flat wood" saw z^aN'-i-ba'-se wood-INST-PUSH-cut "something to cut wood by pushing" saw, cross-cut saw we'magi'xe (wa-i-ma-gixe) [Omaha] WA-INST-CUT-hiss(?) cross-cut saw z^aN'ttaNga-i'-ma'-se log-INST-CUT-cut hand-saw z^aN'-i-ma-se wood-INST-CUT-cut hand-saw we'bamoN (wa-i-ba-moN) [Ponka] WA-INST-PUSH-work(?) (In Omaha, this word means "file") circular saw u-noN'-sne at a sawmill in-FOOT-split sawmill z^aN'-u-noN'-sne-ti wood-in-FOOT-split-house (From the last two, it looks like unoN'sne is probably a shortened form of z^aN'u-noN'-sne.) sawdust z^aN-noN'-tube wood-FOOT-powder (Apparently the instrumental prefix noN-, FOOT, governs the action of a circular saw in a sawmill, and perhaps other mechanical actions occurring low to the ground.) log chain z^aN'-i-dhi-snu wood-INST-HAND-slide "wood snaker" z^aN'taNga-i'-dhi-snu log-INST-HAND-slide "log snaker" iron wedge maN'zewi'uga'sne (maN'ze-wa-i-u-ga-sne) (iron-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-split) rasp z^aN-i'-ba-moN wood-INST-PUSH-work moN-i'-dhi-xdha'de ??-INST-HAND-?? (Does anyone have any idea what moN and xdha'de might mean here?) hammer z^aNwe'thiN (z^aN-wa-i'-thiN) [Ponka] wood-WA-INST-hit "wood striker" iron hammer iN'?ewe'thiN (iN'?e-wa-i-thiN) stone-WA-INST-hit "stone striker" nails maN'zewi'ugadoN (man'ze-wa-i'-u-ga-doN) metal-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-force "metal things used to be pounded in" screws maN'ze-u-dhi'-gdheze metal-in-HAND-striped u-dhi'-gdheze in-HAND-striped screw-driver wi'udhi'doN (wa-i-u-dhi-doN) WA-INST-in-HAND-force "thing used for drawing in" auger, gimlet, we'dhibdhiN (wa-i'-dhi-bdhiN) [Ponka] corkscrew, WA-INST-HAND-turn(?) brace and bit wiu'dhi?u'de (wa-i-u'-dhi-?u'de) [Omaha] WA-INST-in-HAND-hole "thing for putting holes in things by hand" From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 14:42:13 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:42:13 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: You mean they're still active, right? Sorry, my original phraseology leaves the answer ambiguous. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimm GoodTracks" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:27 PM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "R. Rankin" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM > Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) > about > > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, > that > > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject > prefixes. > > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very > strange > > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active > subject > > pronominals exclusively. > > > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals > of > > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 14 14:49:28 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:49:28 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: >This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this.<< It, generally, appears that reflexive is regarded/treated as something pretty special and different from accusative. In ME and modern English, an accusative (refl.) no longer exists (myself, yourself etc.) - cf. http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:GhB7AxMX94cJ:www.public.asu.edu/~gelderen/REFL0.pdf+reflexive+zikh&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 In Yiddish, unlike in German, it's treated pretty special using _zikh_ through all persons, e.g. I wash myself - Ikh vash zekh (zikh) You wash yourself - Di (du) vashst zekh He washes himself - Er vasht zekh She washes herself - Zi vasht zekh We wash ourself - Mir vashn zekh You wash yourselves - Ir vasht zekh They wash themselves - Zey vashn zekh (literary forms in brackets) migluzaza (miglu'z^az^a) nigluzaza igluzaza (etc.) Even in German, I never 'felt' the reflexive pronouns (mich, dich, sich, uns, euch, sich) to be accusatives (rather than some kind of intransitive form). Interestingly, in Slavic and some Romance languages there are reflexive constructions that have no need of de-transitivizing (hence no such morphemes functioning that way as pointed to by Legendre!): e.g. in Rumanian/Spanish "aici se lucreazã/aquí se trabaja" (and many times in Slavic and Yiddish as well) the morphemes respective go with /intransitive/ verbs. (Okay, there are also transitives like e.g. Rumanian _se stie_ [se s^ti'ye] - it is known/one knows - which do not devaluate this fact stated!) Also, that's what I found in Dakota: 'Naicijin' [naN-i'ch´i-z^iN] from _nazin_ (an intransitive verb!). What do you guess is this proper name's meaning ;) ? BTW, in http://lakhota.nm.ru/sk2uni.htm#936 the examples for ic'ikte (to kill oneself) is translated erroneously as *_I ran_ etc. Alfred From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jan 14 14:47:54 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:47:54 -0600 Subject: OP carpentry terms Message-ID: Rory: many thanks for thse carpentry terms. Now i will have to get to work and do one for the Dakota. Some of what you sent I don't remember seeing in any of the dictionaries. This will give me a chance to question the elders for the missing terms. Pidamaya, Louie From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 14 16:24:16 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:24:16 -0600 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? Rory From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed Jan 14 16:54:49 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:54:49 +0000 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: Aho, Rory! Yes, Joseph Casagrande noted in IJAL in the 1950s that Comanche wasabe was a Dhegiha loan. There are a few other forms that the languages share (/aho/ being one of them!). I think the Comanche word for 'shield' is also borrowed from a Dhegiha language. Best Anthony >>> rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu 14/01/2004 16:24:16 >>> Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jan 14 17:07:43 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:07:43 -0600 Subject: Comanche borrowings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's hka'wa in Osage, of course. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Comanche borrowings? Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? Rory From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Jan 14 17:37:38 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:37:38 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: Yes! As in IOM: Na'we haki'ch^e ke. I hurt my hand. NYi ukik^un re. Pour yourself some water. [lit.= give yourself] Aki'hta ke. I see myself. Winn/ Hochank [from Ken M's]: Hakic^gi's. I cut myself. Hirara'kikara. You take care of yourself. Hakipe'nkn. They waited for each other. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > You mean they're still active, right? Sorry, my original phraseology leaves the > answer ambiguous. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jimm GoodTracks" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:27 PM > Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "R. Rankin" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM > > Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > > > > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) > > about > > > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, > > that > > > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject > > prefixes. > > > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very > > strange > > > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active > > subject > > > pronominals exclusively. > > > > > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals > > of > > > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Jan 14 17:52:00 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:52:00 -0600 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: That appears straight from Ponca, as one of the late Elders' Ponca name was "Wasabe" (Black Bear). Some time ago, ten or more years ago, Lila Wistrand-Robinson, work on a Commanche Dictionary. I had the impression that she may have been contracted by the tribe. Nevertheless, I dont recall anyone ever mentioning this Dictionary by her, and I failed to ask her about several years ago when discussing other matters. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM Subject: Comanche borrowings? > > > > > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' > is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, > tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, > 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably > Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. > > Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': > puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' > or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? > > Rory > > > From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed Jan 14 18:14:16 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:14:16 +0000 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: Dear Jimm! Oh, Lila's dictionary was published - James Armagost was co-author - and I have a copy back home in Yorkshire. It's far from perfect but it's still very useful. I know she did work on Jiwele too. She (or James?) spotted a number of laons from other Native languages into Comanche. Best Anthony >>> goodtracks at GBRonline.com 14/01/2004 17:52:00 >>> That appears straight from Ponca, as one of the late Elders' Ponca name was "Wasabe" (Black Bear). Some time ago, ten or more years ago, Lila Wistrand-Robinson, work on a Commanche Dictionary. I had the impression that she may have been contracted by the tribe. Nevertheless, I dont recall anyone ever mentioning this Dictionary by her, and I failed to ask her about several years ago when discussing other matters. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM Subject: Comanche borrowings? > > > > > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' > is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, > tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, > 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably > Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. > > Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': > puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' > or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? > > Rory > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 20:28:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:28:15 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: Thanks! So all the KI's behave the same way in IOM/WI. B. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimm GoodTracks" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > Yes! As in IOM: > Na'we haki'ch^e ke. I hurt my hand. > NYi ukik^un re. Pour yourself some water. [lit.= give yourself] > Aki'hta ke. I see myself. > > Winn/ Hochank [from Ken M's]: > Hakic^gi's. I cut myself. > Hirara'kikara. You take care of yourself. > Hakipe'nkn. They waited for each other. From heike.boedeker at netcologne.de Wed Jan 14 20:49:23 2004 From: heike.boedeker at netcologne.de (Heike =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6deker?=) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:23 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <400556F8.1060308@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 20:51:02 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:51:02 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: It wouldn't be typologically unusual if Lakota were an ergative language where transitivity had a lot to do with pronominal selection, but it seems a little peculiar to me to find it in Siouan. Here we'd expect the patient set with stative and (sometimes) experiencer subjects, not just intransitive ones. Biloxi doesn't distinguish active/stative pronominal sets, and it looks as though all the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages except Dakotan keep the active pronominals in reflexive constructions. What about Crow and Hidatsa? The 1st plural pronominal should reliably indicate which set is used (1st and 2nd singular might not, since the reflexive prefix begins with /i/). Or Mandan? One of my students *wrote a dissertation on the grammatical evolution of reflexives in European languages (Germanic, Romance and Slavic). It isn't as heavy on theory as I might have liked, but his implicational (evolutionary?) hierarchy was: 1. reflexive 2. reciprocal 3. inchoative (inan. subj.) 4. inchoative (anim. subj.) 5. impersonal (transitive) 6. impersonal (intransitive) 7. agent-licensing adverbial (inan. subj.) 8. agent-licensing adverbial (anim. subj.) 9. resultative (inan. subj.) 10. resultative (anim. subj.) 11. agentive passive (inan. subj.) 12. agentive passive (anim. subj.) It would be interesting if Dakotan reflexives split along these lines somehow, but I take it that all reflexive constructions with /ic?i-/ require the same subj. pronominal set. Bob *Sohn, Joong-Sun. 1998. _The Functional Evolution of the Reflexive Pronoun in Romance, Slavic and Germanic_. Univ. of Kansas Ph.D. dissertation. University Microfilms International. ----- Original Message ----- > This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has > argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a > direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross > linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's > odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this. > David From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 20:53:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:53:19 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: I recall that and I think I cited it in that BLS paper I did back in about 1996, although I can't recall if I cited a paper or just personal communication from JEK. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:11 PM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > For what it's worth, I've argued that the -hki(k)- reflexive/reciprocal is > an incorporated co-verb 'be with'. I forget where I delivered the paper, > but, of course, I still have it. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 21:07:31 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:07:31 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Those interested in the continuing analysis of wa- should acquire a copy of Ardis Eschenberg's SSILA paper (given last weekend). She has a really interesting analysis in terms of semantic aspect (i.e., aktionsart) and manages to explain the vast majority of usages in Omaha. My only qualms about the discussion of wa- thus far have to do with the fact that, from the historical perspective, there are OBVIOUSLY several different WA's. These must be kept separate if we're to understand the synchronic workings of the affix. After all, we wouldn't want to try to explain all the constructions with "to", "two" and "too" together in one category. Everybody accepts that Dakota 1st singular agent, wa-, is different from the plural indefinite patient, but Dhegihan 1st pl. patient, wa-a, must be distinguished from third pl. too. And there may be others. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 21:10:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:10:06 -0600 Subject: Job posting. Message-ID: I note in the Anthropological Newsletter that the University of Missouri, Columbia is advertising a full-time, tenure track position in anthropological linguistics with a specialty in historical linguistics and related areas. This would seem to be tailor-made for some of the participants on this list. Is Louanna retiring? Bob From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Jan 14 22:24:02 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:24:02 -0600 Subject: Job posting. Message-ID: She's in Chiapas for 3 months. Otherwise, she's retired. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:10 PM Subject: Job posting. > I note in the Anthropological Newsletter that the University of Missouri, > Columbia is advertising a full-time, tenure track position in anthropological > linguistics with a specialty in historical linguistics and related areas. This > would seem to be tailor-made for some of the participants on this list. > > Is Louanna retiring? > > Bob From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 14 22:38:25 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:38:25 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: >>In Yiddish, unlike in German, it's treated pretty special using _zikh_ through all persons [...]<<<< >Did that pattern happen to develop under Slavic influence?<< I'd say 'jein' ;-) Here are a couple of interesting links I remember: http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol06/vol06.165 http://vulfplotkin.tripod.com/linguistica/yiddish.html (5b. Voice ...) Regards Alfred From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 14 22:53:56 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:53:56 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: > Everybody accepts that Dakota 1st singular agent, wa-, is different from the > plural indefinite patient, but Dhegihan 1st pl. patient, wa-a, must be > distinguished from third pl. too. And there may be others. Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? Maybe I just need to ask Ardis for a copy of her paper. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 00:45:30 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:45:30 -0700 Subject: Comanche borrowings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For what it's worth, wa + sapA is the basis of terms for blackbear in some Dakotan dialects, too, e.g., the CSD lists wasaben, as far as I can recall for Assiniboine or Stoney. This would correspond to Teton wasape=la. I've always assumed this borrowing had to be motivated by some sort of taboo avoidence process leading to borrowing of replacement terms for native terms. On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? > (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, > University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from > Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 01:29:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:29:41 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask > again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If > so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the > "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? We know there are two elements by the logic that things come between them - something similar happens in Winnebago, too - and by the logic that the order is different in wea < wa-i-a or wa-gi-a and in awa. Discontinuous morphemes are not all that common in Siouan languages, but do occur, e.g., in some negatives, for example. You might think of this as a single logical morpheme with two constituent physical morphemes, though I think this rather distorts the historical notion of a morpheme. In some ways it's not different from the discontinuous (or infixing) stems that Siouan and Caddoan and other languages have, in those cases where the constituent elements neither one have a certain gloss outside of the gloss for the wholem e.g., OP z^a=...he or z^u=...he. We generally assume that there are two separate morphemes (at least) involved historically, in such cases, though I believe that in Caddoan and elsewhere it often turns out that the location of inserted material is not necessarily an old morpheme boundary. Sometimes it's just a phonologically suitable spot in a form for insertions - a place where the canons of the language permit insertions to occur, as in English infixations like abso-damn-lutely. (Far-freakin'-out is an example where the insertion occurs on a morpheme boundary.) I wish I knew some of the Caddoan examples. I might be able to track down some Navajo ones. > And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd > pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? No, we don't know, historically, though buried in what I've said in this thread are some arguments for believing that this might be the case. In the context of modern Dhegiha grammars I'd have to say that these wa's are definitely different. The possible historical connections are not of the sort that would enter into a speaker's intuitions, I think. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jan 15 02:52:10 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:52:10 EST Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: Crow reflexives look like this: 1s b-ihchi-waa-lichi' 'I hit myself' etc. 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lichi 3 ihchi-lichi' 1p b-ihchi-waa-lit-u'u 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lit-uu 3 ihchi-lit-u'u I have always assumed that b and d in the 1st and 2nd person forms were derived from stative bii and dii, with shortening of the long vowel before the initial i of the reflexive. The fact that balee doesn't appear in the 1pl form is not necessarily conclusive, since balee also does not occur with the emphatic/contrastive pronouns and with pronominal objects of postpositions, both of which are based on the stative forms. 1s biile'en 'I myself' etc. 2 diile'en 3 iile'en 1p bi'iluun 2 di'iluun 3 i'iluun 1s biss 'to me' etc. 2 diss 3 kuss 1p bi'iluss 2 di'iluss 3 kuss I have always thought that what was strange about the Lakota reflexives was that there was only one pronoun rather than two. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jan 15 04:42:41 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:42:41 -0600 Subject: Fw: [Lexicog] Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Leman" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: [Lexicog] Comanche borrowings? > Jimm and Anthony, here is a response from Lila: > > Lila Robinson here about Comanche words: In my Comanche dictionary wasape > was given to me as the word for bear in general, possibly because that was > the only bear in that area and it was a black bear, I don't know. > > For horse I was given puki with the variations puku and puukU (the final u > being whispered). The word esikUhma was given for horse, but literally > means "gray male". I was also given the word tIhIya (I=barred i, which the > Comanches preferred written as barred u in the dictionary). I was not given > the word kobi for horse. Hope this is helpful to you.--Lila Wistrand > Robinson > > > > > > Dear Jimm! > > > > > > Oh, Lila's dictionary was published - James Armagost was co-author - > > > and I have a copy back home in Yorkshire. It's far from perfect but > > > it's still very useful. I know she did work on Jiwele too. She (or > > > James?) spotted a number of laons from other Native languages into > > > Comanche. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > >>> goodtracks at GBRonline.com 14/01/2004 17:52:00 >>> > > > That appears straight from Ponca, as one of the late Elders' Ponca name > > > was > > > "Wasabe" (Black Bear). > > > > > > Some time ago, ten or more years ago, Lila Wistrand-Robinson, work on > > > a > > > Commanche Dictionary. I had the impression that she may have been > > > contracted by the tribe. Nevertheless, I dont recall anyone ever > > > mentioning > > > this Dictionary by her, and I failed to ask her about several years ago > > > when > > > discussing other matters. > > > Jimm > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rory M Larson" > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM > > > Subject: Comanche borrowings? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' > > > > is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, > > > > tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, > > > > 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably > > > > Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. > > > > > > > > Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': > > > > puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' > > > > or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? > > > > > > > > Rory > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/HKE4lB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Thu Jan 15 05:14:01 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:14:01 CST Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy Message-ID: Hi yall, I thought I'd give people some visuals on some of the things I'm doing with the texts I'm digitizing. I posted the first chapter from "Brave against the enemy - Thoka wan itkokhip ohitike kine he" (1944), part of the BIA Indian life reader series, a bilingual english-lakhota modern story. Here's the URI: http://free.hostdepartment.com/i/imageStorage/nodes/sources/afraidofhawk_br ave/index.html I know it works in IE 6. There's no xml in this sample, so I hope it'll work in other broswers too, even if it's not as pretty. The images are low resolution so they download fast. The lakhota text is unicode, so you have to have a unicode font installed. I use, and told the web page to ask your broswer for, Code 2000. You can get that font at this URI: http://home.att.net/~jameskass/CODE2000.ZIP I hope you find it interesting! Some other great uses of digital text are the work of Jan Ullrich. His site: http://www.inext.cz/siouan/ Pat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 08:58:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:58:52 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > Crow reflexives look like this: > > 1s b-ihchi-waa-lichi' 'I hit myself' etc. > 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lichi > 3 ihchi-lichi' ... > I have always assumed that b and d in the 1st and 2nd person forms were > derived from stative bii and dii, with shortening of the long vowel before the > initial i of the reflexive. Could they be derived from active series pronominals like ba(a)- and da-? Of course, given that the underlying verb is also inflected, I can see why an oblique or stative form seems more natural. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 15 16:05:06 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:05:06 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Thanks, John! That's a huge help. So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while P3 is we'-[stem]. In causatives, P12 is [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, with short a. Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same (historical) *wa as that used in P3. Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? Thanks, Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: WA- once more. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/14/2004 07:29 PM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask > again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If > so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the > "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? We know there are two elements by the logic that things come between them - something similar happens in Winnebago, too - and by the logic that the order is different in wea < wa-i-a or wa-gi-a and in awa. Discontinuous morphemes are not all that common in Siouan languages, but do occur, e.g., in some negatives, for example. You might think of this as a single logical morpheme with two constituent physical morphemes, though I think this rather distorts the historical notion of a morpheme. In some ways it's not different from the discontinuous (or infixing) stems that Siouan and Caddoan and other languages have, in those cases where the constituent elements neither one have a certain gloss outside of the gloss for the wholem e.g., OP z^a=...he or z^u=...he. We generally assume that there are two separate morphemes (at least) involved historically, in such cases, though I believe that in Caddoan and elsewhere it often turns out that the location of inserted material is not necessarily an old morpheme boundary. Sometimes it's just a phonologically suitable spot in a form for insertions - a place where the canons of the language permit insertions to occur, as in English infixations like abso-damn-lutely. (Far-freakin'-out is an example where the insertion occurs on a morpheme boundary.) I wish I knew some of the Caddoan examples. I might be able to track down some Navajo ones. > And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd > pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? No, we don't know, historically, though buried in what I've said in this thread are some arguments for believing that this might be the case. In the context of modern Dhegiha grammars I'd have to say that these wa's are definitely different. The possible historical connections are not of the sort that would enter into a speaker's intuitions, I think. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jan 15 17:11:53 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:11:53 EST Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: In a message dated 1/15/2004 2:01:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > > Crow reflexives look like this: > > > > 1s b-ihchi-waa-lichi' 'I hit myself' etc. > > 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lichi > > 3 ihchi-lichi' > ... > > I have always assumed that b and d in the 1st and 2nd person forms were > > derived from stative bii and dii, with shortening of the long vowel before > the > > initial i of the reflexive. > > Could they be derived from active series pronominals like ba(a)- and da-? > > Of course, given that the underlying verb is also inflected, I can see why > an oblique or stative form seems more natural. > Theoretically the b and d of the reflexives could be derived from the active set, but then we would have to explain why there are two active pronouns in a reflexive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 15 17:46:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:46:33 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: > Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? As far as I know, it's the same across Dhegiha. While I'm very hesitant to relate wa- '3pl indef.' to wa-a- '1st pl patient', it remains a possibility. In French, for example, the 3rd person impersonal pronoun "on" [oN] meaning 'one', as in 'one doesn't speak unless spoken to', has become the de-facto 1st plural pronoun for a majority of French speakers in both France and Canada. It is simply replacing "nous" in the subject role. It continues to be used with 3rd person verb agreement. So 'impersonal' > '1st pl' isn't out of the question at all. Synchronically they've split however. From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 15 16:58:35 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:58:35 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:05 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WA- once more. Thanks, John! That's a huge help. So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while P3 is we'-[stem]. In causatives, P12 is [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, with short a. Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same (historical) *wa as that used in P3. Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? Thanks, Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: WA- once more. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/14/2004 07:29 PM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask > again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If > so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the > "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? We know there are two elements by the logic that things come between them - something similar happens in Winnebago, too - and by the logic that the order is different in wea < wa-i-a or wa-gi-a and in awa. Discontinuous morphemes are not all that common in Siouan languages, but do occur, e.g., in some negatives, for example. You might think of this as a single logical morpheme with two constituent physical morphemes, though I think this rather distorts the historical notion of a morpheme. In some ways it's not different from the discontinuous (or infixing) stems that Siouan and Caddoan and other languages have, in those cases where the constituent elements neither one have a certain gloss outside of the gloss for the wholem e.g., OP z^a=...he or z^u=...he. We generally assume that there are two separate morphemes (at least) involved historically, in such cases, though I believe that in Caddoan and elsewhere it often turns out that the location of inserted material is not necessarily an old morpheme boundary. Sometimes it's just a phonologically suitable spot in a form for insertions - a place where the canons of the language permit insertions to occur, as in English infixations like abso-damn-lutely. (Far-freakin'-out is an example where the insertion occurs on a morpheme boundary.) I wish I knew some of the Caddoan examples. I might be able to track down some Navajo ones. > And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd > pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? No, we don't know, historically, though buried in what I've said in this thread are some arguments for believing that this might be the case. In the context of modern Dhegiha grammars I'd have to say that these wa's are definitely different. The possible historical connections are not of the sort that would enter into a speaker's intuitions, I think. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 18:48:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:48:08 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with > a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. That would be a reasonable supicion, however, I'm not aware of any pattern of accentuation that would suggest that P12 is waa- when there isn't something between the two parts. It's as if there are three variants: wa- ~ wa...a- and a-wa-. Certainly it would be worth listening for length in P12 vs. other instances of "wa." As I recall - can't do this one from memory - wa- Obj3p is accented in some paradigms. > In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while > P3 is we'-[stem]. So presumably weea- and wee- > In causatives, P12 is > [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, > with short a. We might substute some "variable" like CAUSATIVE for =dhe, since this also occurs with =khidhe and presumably =kkidhe and =gidhe, too. > Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and > *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in > order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same > (historical) *wa as that used in P3. This is correct. One possible source for the extra -a- is locative a-. > Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? This is true across Dhegiha as far as I know. I have not investigated the matter in Quapaw or Kaw. I believe things are the same in Osage, except that the Osage (and other) datives are rather different from those in OP. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 19:07:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:07:18 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <167.2a8a5ad3.2d3823d9@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > Theoretically the b and d of the reflexives could be derived from the active > set, but then we would have to explain why there are two active pronouns in a > reflexive. I asked, because there are some cases of just this A-REFL-A-VERB pattern in Winnebago, if I recall the examples from the Miner Field Lexicon correctly, and both Dakotan and Winnebago have some cases of REFL-A-VERB, too, as I recall. The sense of the REFL element is not always reflexive, but it matches *hki(k) in form and has some plausibly related sense like reciprocal or 'in the middle' or 'be with'. Because of this in MVS it looks like the source of the construction (with formant -kki(k)-) is something like A-WITH A-verb, where WITH is *hkik(e). Of course, I don't know if the Crow example is necessarily a case of this, too. There are some instances of this comitative in Dakotan, but the examples I recall best are from Dhegiha where the comitative co-verb is *z^o=...kre. So, in the Dhegiha comitative cases we have something syntactically parallel, but with a different formant. z^u'=a-gdhe b-dha A1 with A1-go 'I went with him' (Example constructed, but I believe it's essentially correct.) Forms with this syntax would naturally have doubled agent marking, and might remain A-WITH-A-VERB or develop along the lines A-WITH-VERB or WITH-A-VERB. A comitative origin is more consistent with the evolution of a reciprocal, I think, than a reflexive, but the Dhegiha and Winnebago-Chiwere examples with *hki(k)- are all reflexive/reciprocal, and the Dakotan case (*hki- reciprocal and 'in the middle' and some *hkik(e) commitatives) is non-reflexive, with another formant yielding the reflexive. So perhaps the reflexive/reciprocals extend an original reciprocal. From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 15 20:09:26 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:09:26 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, What you are recalling below at ****** is perhaps that in Osage wa' is accented when P3p with a dhe- inflectable initial verb, but not other verbs, and wa valence reducer is not accented with the same dhe- verbs. And as I said in an earlier email, wa P1p and wa P3p are not differentiated by length in Osage, as far as I know. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:48 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WA- once more. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with > a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. That would be a reasonable supicion, however, I'm not aware of any pattern of accentuation that would suggest that P12 is waa- when there isn't something between the two parts. It's as if there are three variants: wa- ~ wa...a- and a-wa-. Certainly it would be worth listening for length in P12 vs. other instances of "wa." *****As I recall - can't do this one from memory - wa- Obj3p is accented in some paradigms.******* > In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while > P3 is we'-[stem]. So presumably weea- and wee- > In causatives, P12 is > [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, > with short a. We might substute some "variable" like CAUSATIVE for =dhe, since this also occurs with =khidhe and presumably =kkidhe and =gidhe, too. > Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and > *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in > order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same > (historical) *wa as that used in P3. This is correct. One possible source for the extra -a- is locative a-. > Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? This is true across Dhegiha as far as I know. I have not investigated the matter in Quapaw or Kaw. I believe things are the same in Osage, except that the Osage (and other) datives are rather different from those in OP. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 20:43:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:43:13 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <001801c3dba3$79b40920$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > John, What you are recalling below at ****** is perhaps that in Osage wa' is > accented when P3p with a dhe- inflectable initial verb, but not other verbs, > and wa valence reducer is not accented with the same dhe- verbs. That's it! > And as I said in an earlier email, wa P1p and wa P3p are not differentiated > by length in Osage, as far as I know. And note that Carolyn has been looking carefully at length in Osage. But, with a motivated curiosity that I won't go into here, has anyone noticed anything different about the (L)HL pitch contour with these two Dhegiha wa's? This is something it's easy to ignore, especially if one is thinking in terms of "accent" and/or length. In my (actually fairly limited) experience, the cues for accentuation are rather different in Dhegiha from the cues in English. If you listen with "English ears," you can easily be misled. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 20:34:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:34:53 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > ..., and the Dakotan case (*hki- reciprocal and 'in the middle' and some > *hkik(e) commitatives) ... *hkik(e) comes out khic^a, in case that's not clear. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 15 22:16:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:16:49 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: What about verbs with locative prefixes like i-? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." > I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. > Carolyn From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 05:21:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:21:57 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <007001c3dbb6$3bf52c00$12b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What about verbs with locative prefixes like i-? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Q." > > I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. Well, it's LaFlesche, but i'pize ("i'-bi-c,e") 'thirsty' P1 oNdhoN'pize P2 i'dhipize P12 wea'piza=i (Note wea'- < wa-i-a-) This is the onlyi-locative example offered outright in the dicitonary that I have noticed. Forms with different objects tend not to occur However, as I said, datives are a bit different in Osage, and the pattenr there features regular, but accented pronominals alternating with ki' in the third person, rather like the ka-instrumental forms, except those have ka- in the third person. Omaha-Ponca's fusions of the pronominals with dative (g)i- do not occur. ki'pakkoN ("gi'-ba-k.oN") 'angry' P1 oN'pakkoN P2 dhi'pakkoN P12 wa'pakkoN=i ki'zu ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' P1 oN'zu P2 dhi'zu P12 wa'zu=i As far as the -a-wa- pattern: e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to' P1 e'= ki-p- pi-m- oN P2 e'= ki-s^-pi-z^-oN P3 e'= kip- pi- oN P12 e'=awa-kip- pi- oN This is what I call a fun verb. hni'=...cce ("hni'-t.se") 'cold' P1 hni=oN-cce P2 hni'=dhi'-cce P12 hni=a-wa-cca=i oaNppe=...hi ("noN-p.e'-hi") 'hungry' P1 noN'ppe=oNhi P2 noN'ppe=dhehi [sic, for dhihi?] P12 noN'ppe=awahi=i Osage Rituals s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 05:29:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:29:39 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Osage Rituals > > s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' Sorry, this was 'I make them' (homophonous with 'he makes us'). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 06:27:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:27:45 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I asked, because there are some cases of just this A-REFL-A-VERB pattern > in Winnebago, if I recall the examples from the Miner Field Lexicon > correctly, and both Dakotan and Winnebago have some cases of REFL-A-VERB, > too, as I recall. Miner 1815 kiika'waz^a' 'wipe oneself', A1 ha-kipa'z^a ~ hakika'waz^a Think A1 *wa-hki'k- paz^a ~ *wa-hki'-p-paz^a A3 *hkii'k-paz^a Recall that the first persons are ha (regular) ~ reflexes of *p (syncopating). I've reversed the alternative first persons. The first (as Miner gives them) is doubly inflected (regular prefixal and infixed syncopating), whereas the second is singly inflected (regular prefixal). Compare Miner 1922 kiiku'rus 'withdraw', A1 hakiku'rus, which has only the prefixal pattern. Now compare Miner 1829 kiiru's 'take for oneself, adopt', A1 hakidu's (d < *pr), which has only the doubly inflected pattern. Finally Miner 1839 kiiwa'gax 'take, draw picture', A1 kiipa'gax is only inflected by the infixed pattern (A3 *hkii'-pakax, A1 *hkii'-p-pakax). Miner 1813 kiik?o' 'shave oneself', has first person hikik?o'. I think this should be hiNkik?o', making it a stative pattern verb. I suspect this is an experiencer pattern. K?o' is 'scrape', so the pattern is something like '(face) oneself to be scraped', where 'face' is the third person subject and the patient for which the verb is inflected is the experiencer. Because the experiencer is experiencing the scraping of his own body, the stem is reflexive. This is a bit convoluted, but not too far from OP git?e 'one's kin to die', which is reflexive possessive and agrees with the experiencer whose kin has died, e.g., iNt?e 'mine has died; my own has died; mine is dead to me'. As far as I know, this information is only in Miner's Field Lexicon. It does not appear in any of the grammars of Winnebago to date. > ... and the Dakotan case (*hki- reciprocal and 'in the middle' and some > *hkik(e) commitatives) is non-reflexive, with another formant yielding > the reflexive. See Boas & Deloria, pp. 79-80. 'in two parts' khi-c^a'ksa 'he cuts it in two by striking' (kaksa) 'in contact' wakhiks^aN 'I wrestle with him' (a small step to 'we wrestle each other') P. 80 refers to the reciprocal. P. 79 refers to "the obsolete stem khi which appears in adverbial form as kic^hic^a 'to be with'." This is in form (though apparently not in sense) a reflexive possessive of *khic^a 'to be with' (< *hkika). Compare OP z^u'=gi-gdhe 'be with one's own' vs. z^u'=gdhe 'be with'. A reference here to p. 138 draws our attention to wikho's^kalaka waN khos^ka'laka waN kic^hi yaNka' girl boy with was sitting Boas & Deloria say kic^hi 'with one person' ... derived from an obsolete verb khi. Buechel (p. 300) gives examples with kic^(h)i' 'with, together with' and kic^(h)i'c^a 'to be with, together with, following with, on the same side with; ...', e.g., he uNki'c^(h)ic^a=pi 'he is with us'. The "obsolete verb khi" seems to be Boas & Delroai's way of saying, "we deduce the existence of this stem, but it is unattested in itself." Buechel, p. 298, mentions that khi "indicates that the action is performed through the middle." "It does not, however, draw the accent." JEK From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 14:00:24 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:00:24 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, as 'I make them' this form is fine. wa P3p + a 'A1s' metathesizes to awa regularly. -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:30 PM To: Siouan List Subject: Re: WA- once more. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Osage Rituals > > s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' Sorry, this was 'I make them' (homophonous with 'he makes us'). From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 14:00:17 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:00:17 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Q." > > I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. Carolyn says: LaFlesche's data is wrong according to everything I have from speakers. John, in your examples below, and I've numbered them: 1. the form for P1p (or "P12") would be with wa only, not wa-i-a> wea. 2. in this one you haven't given the P3p to compare with P1p, but both should be wa as you have shown for P12. 3. these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p 4. this should be wa in P12. Some verbs do vary in P3p only, between ki and wa, and this one appears to have ki for P3, not surprisingly. 5., 6., 7. group with 2., should be wa for P1p. Some of the verbs listed here I don't have, but I have scores with the same pattern of patient pronominals, and never any with awa in P1p, always wa. There are hundreds if not thousands of errors in the LaFlesche dictionary, some as systematic as this one seems to be. Take, for example, forms with n- (ne, sni, sne, etc) in A2s, which are likely Omaha, since such forms never existed in Osage, but are found throughout the LF dictionary. Is the P1p form in Omaha wa-a or awa? Carolyn ******************** John said: 1. Well, it's LaFlesche, but i'pize ("i'-bi-c,e") 'thirsty' P1 oNdhoN'pize P2 i'dhipize P12 wea'piza=i (Note wea'- < wa-i-a-) This is the onlyi-locative example offered outright in the dicitonary that I have noticed. Forms with different objects tend not to occur. 2. However, as I said, datives are a bit different in Osage, and the pattenr there features regular, but accented pronominals alternating with ki' in the third person, rather like the ka-instrumental forms, except those have ka- in the third person. Omaha-Ponca's fusions of the pronominals with dative (g)i- do not occur. ki'pakkoN ("gi'-ba-k.oN") 'angry' P1 oN'pakkoN P2 dhi'pakkoN P12 wa'pakkoN=i 3. ki'zu ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' P1 oN'zu P2 dhi'zu P12 wa'zu=i 4. As far as the -a-wa- pattern: e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to' P1 e'= ki-p- pi-m- oN P2 e'= ki-s^-pi-z^-oNTher P3 e'= kip- pi- oN P12 e'=awa-kip- pi- oN This is what I call a fun verb. 5. hni'=...cce ("hni'-t.se") 'cold' P1 hni=oN-cce P2 hni'=dhi'-cce P12 hni=a-wa-cca=i 6. oaNppe=...hi ("noN-p.e'-hi") 'hungry' P1 noN'ppe=oNhi P2 noN'ppe=dhehi [sic, for dhihi?] P12 noN'ppe=awahi=i 7. Osage Rituals s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 16 15:26:10 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:26:10 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > Is the P1p form in Omaha wa-a or awa? Before the causitives -dhe and -khidhe, it is awa. Otherwise, the normal form is wa(a), not awa. Prior to the present discussion, I had assumed it was wa, just as in P3p. I think we need to check with our speakers to find out whether it should be considered wa or waa. Perhaps Vida or Ardis could help us with this. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 16 15:35:31 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:35:31 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: >* 3. ki'zu ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' >* >* P1 oN'zu >* P2 dhi'zu >* P12 wa'zu=i > 3. these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p Any particular reason for the long aa' here? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 16 15:41:10 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:41:10 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Okay, now I'm dying to know what the situation is with the "us" and "them" forms in Kaw and Quapaw. Bob? :-) Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 17:27:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:27:52 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: LaFlesche per Koontz: 3. ki'zo ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' P1 oN(oN)'zo P2 dhi(i)'zo P3 ki(i)'zo(=pe (?)) P12 wa(a)'zo=pe CQ These are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p > Any particular reason for the long aa' here? Yes, the length/shift of accent is the mark of the dative paradigm, which has ki in the third person and accented (long) pronominals in the non-zero pronominal forms (with ki deleted). Thus, except in the third person, this paradigm resembles the OP ga-instrumental (and Os ka-instrumental) paradigms. The third persons have ki'- vs. ka-, but the first persons both have aa'-, etc. OP's datives are unique in Dhegiha. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 17:22:21 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:22:21 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <000b01c3dc39$127d6440$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > LaFlesche's data is wrong according to everything I have from speakers. > John, in your examples below, and I've numbered them: > 1. the form for P1p (or "P12") would be with wa only, not wa-i-a> wea. So, P1 oNdhoNpize, but P12 wapize? No sign of i at all, let alone extra -a- ? At a minimum I;d have expected we'-, if not we'-a-. > 2. in this one you haven't given the P3p to compare with P1p, but both > should be wa as you have shown for P12. Sorry, LaFlesche doesn't supply P3p forms as a rule. (As you know, of course, but some reading this might not.) In the datives LaFlesche agrees with the contemporary Osage dative model. The only traces of dative ki- are in the third person in ki'- and perhaps in the fact that the pronominals are accented (suggesting contraction with something). However, I'd be surprised to find subject use of wa 3p at all. > 3. these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p Oops, yes, I should have changed LF's OP-influenced u to o. > 4. this should be wa in P12. Some verbs do vary in P3p only, between ki > and wa, and this one appears to have ki for P3, not surprisingly. > 5., 6., 7. group with 2., should be wa for P1p. > LaFlesche: > e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to' > > P1 e'= ki-p- pi-m- oN > P2 e'= ki-s^-pi-z^-oNTher > P3 e'= kip- pi- oN > P12 e'=awa-kip- pi- oN > Some of the verbs listed here I don't have, but I have scores with the same > pattern of patient pronominals, and never any with awa in P1p, always wa. I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 16 18:05:44 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:05:44 -0000 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <400556F8.1060308@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: The reflexive can often mean 'for oneself' . So I suppose it would mean 'stands up for himself' Bruce Date sent: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:49:28 > Also, that's what I found in Dakota: 'Naicijin' [naN-i'ch´i-z^iN] from > _nazin_ (an intransitive verb!). What do you guess is this proper name's > meaning ;) ? > > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Jan 16 18:40:15 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:40:15 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: I found it in ... as ...: Standing Rock UPPER YANCKTONNAI 28 July - 10 August 1885 Number Number in Family Indian Name. English Name. 8 4 Naicijin Stands to Defend Himself Obviously, the "to defend" is implied in the use of the reflexive form here. BTW, also in German, the intransitive verb _stehen_ (to stand) is sometimes used reflexive: _sich stehen_. Alfred >The reflexive can often mean 'for oneself' . So I suppose it would mean 'stands up for himself' - Bruce<< >>Also, that's what I found in Dakota: 'Naicijin' [naN-i'ch´i-z^iN] from _nazin_ (an intransitive verb!). What do you guess is this proper name's meaning ;) ?<<<< From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 16 19:10:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:10:06 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: At this point I'd have to say I'm uncomfortable going on at length with the thread when no one wants to get down and dirty, make the necessary recordings and do the spectrograms. I am in the process of retranscribing all my field notes from the CD's that the Kaw Nation kindly made from my tapes, but this is a long term process and I don't have any examples yet that contrast these two morphemes. I suspect the general pattern is the same as the other Dhegiha languages, but we'll have to see. And for Quapaw we can only rely on Dorsey. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: RE: WA- once more. > > > > > Okay, now I'm dying to know what the situation is with > the "us" and "them" forms in Kaw and Quapaw. Bob? :-) > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 16 19:05:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:05:18 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: You can Google "Praat" and download a phonetic analysis program and make your own measurements. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: RE: WA- once more. > > > > > Carolyn wrote: > > Is the P1p form in Omaha wa-a or awa? > > Before the causitives -dhe and -khidhe, it is awa. > Otherwise, the normal form is wa(a), not awa. > Prior to the present discussion, I had assumed it > was wa, just as in P3p. I think we need to check > with our speakers to find out whether it should be > considered wa or waa. Perhaps Vida or Ardis could > help us with this. > > Rory > > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 20:31:20 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:31:20 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <004d01c3dc64$66779860$0cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I agree with Bob. Unfortunately, I don't have CDs of my taped recordings, so I probably can't use the Google tool. I will work toward this, though, and get more than my impressions and memory of my impressions to go by for vowel length. But I do know that I never heard awa in P1p--that would have instantly grabbed my attention. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:10 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WA- once more. At this point I'd have to say I'm uncomfortable going on at length with the thread when no one wants to get down and dirty, make the necessary recordings and do the spectrograms. I am in the process of retranscribing all my field notes from the CD's that the Kaw Nation kindly made from my tapes, but this is a long term process and I don't have any examples yet that contrast these two morphemes. I suspect the general pattern is the same as the other Dhegiha languages, but we'll have to see. And for Quapaw we can only rely on Dorsey. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: RE: WA- once more. > > > > > Okay, now I'm dying to know what the situation is with > the "us" and "them" forms in Kaw and Quapaw. Bob? :-) > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 16 20:27:58 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:27:58 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: Rory asks about Quapaw and Kaw. My Quapaw conjugation data are more easily accessed than the Kaw right now, but all data are from Dorsey, who failed to record vowel length. Here are some paradigms. There are distinct reflexes of the instrumental i-. be thirsty, dry 1sg aNda'Nbize 2sg i'dibize 3sg i'bize 1pl we'bizawe (we'- from *wa + i' + a-) be anxious to do sthg 1sg aNna'Nhitta 2sg i'dihitta 3sg i'hitta 1pl we'hittawe swell up 1sg aNna'Npa 2sg i'dipa 3sg i'pa 1pl we'pawe And the final paradigm, o'z^eda 'be weary', which clearly shows that there are two /a/ vowels associated with the 1st pl, one preceding and one following the instrumental o-. 1sg o'Nz^eda (o'N- from *o + a'N) 2sg odi'z^eda 3sg oz^e'da 1pl o'waz^edawe (o'wa- from *wa + o' + a-) It is important in the last paradigm to note carefully the *underlying sequence of morphs. This can be determined from the accentual pattern of the form. Recall that MVS *wa+o' > accented o'. And we have accented o'- here, which shows that the wa- portion of the 1st pl pronominal in fact precedes the o'-. Then the phonological sequence of o- + a- (where -a- is the second /a/ of wa-a- '1st pl pat.) entails an epenthetic /w/ between the two vowels. It is easy to misanalyze this form as locative o- followed by pronominal wa-(a)-, but this is wrong, and the accentual pattern proves it. That's about it for now. We can see that there is evidence that there are two /a/'s in the 1st pl. patient in Quapaw, just as in the other languages of the subgroup. We can also see that locatives occur inserted between the two /a/'s of wa-a-. None of this substitutes for making the necessary measurements to determine just how vowel length asserts itself in these paradigms and those with 3pl objects. FWIW Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 22:37:36 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:37:36 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <002e01c3dc6f$b35c0a20$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > I agree with Bob. Unfortunately, I don't have CDs of my taped recordings, > so I probably can't use the Google tool. I don't know praat (a lot of people say that, anyway), but my guess is that all you have to do would be to play your tape into the input jack of your sound card (where the microphone plugs in) while running the record tool to create a file and then apply praat to the file. Praat presumably lets you pin down a section of the sound file and run various tools against it. Bob's CDs just represent a series of sound files taken in like this and copied to CD. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 17 06:02:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:02:45 -0700 Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in > the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts. I found "ni a-dsi wa-kshi tha" 'permit us to cross this water', for which I tentatively offer: niN aci wa-ks^idha water ??? cause us This lacks the extra a- of a-wa- in the same way that it is missing in the speech of the contemporary Osage speakers with whom Carolyn has worked. I'm not sure the osrit* files in the Siouan Archives are the whole set of LaFlesche Osage ritual texts, but this is almost the only example of 'us' in them. The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. Osage has ks^ for kh before i. I'm fairly certain of the causative, in spite of LaFlesche's word boundary between ks^i and dha. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 17 07:27:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:27:59 -0700 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. In-Reply-To: <001901c3dc6f$4db00e10$11b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Rory asks about Quapaw and Kaw. My Quapaw conjugation data are more > easily accessed than the Kaw right now, but all data are from Dorsey, > who failed to record vowel length. Here are some paradigms. There are > distinct reflexes of the instrumental i-. > > be thirsty, dry > 1sg aNda'Nbize > 2sg i'dibize > 3sg i'bize > 1pl we'bizawe (we'- from *wa + i' + a-) The -a- is not explicit in the surface form here as it is in Omaha-Ponca, but it might well be here historically. As I understood Carolyn, she was saying 1pl here would be wa'biza=pe in Osage, which doesn't preserve the i-locative either. If I misunderstood and it was we'biza=pe (or, at least, P12 (1pl) we- with other i-locative statives or transitives, then we might have to consider that P12 lacks "auxiliary" a on the surface in a range of forms in Os and Qu. > And the final paradigm, o'z^eda 'be weary', which clearly shows that > there are two /a/ vowels associated with the 1st pl, one preceding and > one following the instrumental o-. > > 1sg o'Nz^eda (o'N- from *o + a'N) > 2sg odi'z^eda > 3sg oz^e'da > 1pl o'waz^edawe (o'wa- from *wa + o' + a-) > > It is important in the last paradigm to note carefully the *underlying > sequence of morphs. This can be determined from the accentual pattern > of the form. Recall that MVS *wa+o' > accented o'. This seems pretty convincing to me. What happens with P3p wa, if there's any data on it? I didn't mention what happens with OP P12 wa-a- and the a- or u-locatives in OP, because, frankly, I couldn't remember. Here are forms for ui'dha 'tell', i.e., u-gi'-dha (underlying morphemes): 'tell me' iNw-iN'- dha < *u-iN-dha 'tell you' u- dhi'- dha 'tell him' u i'-dha 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha 'tell them' u'-wa- gi-dha These are forms with third person subjects or imperatives. The 'tell them' form has the original wa merged with u (< *o) as u'-, and then a "new" transparent wa has been inserted after u'. This is the normal pattern with something like "u-locative verbs with animate objects," i.e., there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. With the a-locative P12 and P3p are indistinguishable, e.g., a'gaz^i 'to command' yields wa'gaz^i 'he commanded us; he commanded them'. (This is Dorsey, with no marking of long vowels in the modern sense.) The P12 a-wa- variant occurs with the u-locative and also with causatives, as Rory has pointed out. I think this last is a special case of occurring "after incorporations." You also find z^u'=awagdhe 'with us' < z^u'=gdhe 'be with' naNppe'=awahiN=i 'we were hungry' < naNppe'=hiN 'be hungry' naN'=awappe 'he fears us' < naN'=ppe 'fear' e=a'wagaN 'let us be so' < e=...gaN 'be so' This was one of the patterns in LaFlesche's Osage that Carolyn reports as not being found among speakers, and so representing one of LaFlesche's Omaha-isms. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 17 15:36:05 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:36:05 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: > > be thirsty, dry > > 1sg aNda'Nbize > > 2sg i'dibize > > 3sg i'bize > > 1pl we'bizawe (we'- from *wa + i' + a-) > > The -a- is not explicit in the surface form here as it is in Omaha-Ponca, > but it might well be here historically. It may be there synchronically too since JOD didn't transcribe length routinely. For Quapaw there'll probably never be any way to know. We know from the last paradigm I gave that the second /a/ is present organically in QU. > This seems pretty convincing to me. What happens with P3p wa, if there's > any data on it? I'll try to check. I'll have to go to the slip files for that. It took me too long to scrounge up the examples I did find, and I didn't have time the other day to do 3pl. > 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface? Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 17 18:15:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:15:48 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: > > This seems pretty convincing to me. What happens with P3p wa, if there's > > any data on it? JOD neglected to enter wa- as an entry in his dictionary slip file, so any and all examples are going to have to be culled from individual slips for particular verbs or from his Quapaw texts, which are all in printed form, not computer accessible. I suspect this project may be left for another generation of scholars. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 17 22:22:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:22:26 -0700 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. In-Reply-To: <004a01c3dd0f$b1c34c00$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha > > Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface? I don't know what moitivated Dorsey to record it in this fashion. I have to assume he heard a difference between ua' and wa, but I don't have this form from elicitation. He also records first person agents as ua'..., so he is consistant. On the other hand the Hahn ms. grammar of Ponca records first person agents as uwa:'-. Many verbs in u- don't take -wa- 'them' with plural objects. Hahn gives uwa:'thiN 'I hit them'. Unfortunately, she doesn't give 'I hit him', but most other 'I > him' forms on regular first persons are also uwa:'-, e.g., uwa:'gas^a 'I travelled', so we can't assume u-wa-a-. She also doesn't give 'he his us'. The form labelled 'he hit us' is actually 'he his you', and it looks like in copying an earlier form of the paradigm she collapsed these two lines, which would have been in succession. In the abstracted paradigm (no attached verb), p. 77, she does give (u)wa- 'I > him', but (u)wa:'- 'I > them' and (u)wa:'- 'he > us'. Interestingly, she never gives u-awa- for 'he us'! For example, uwa:'bitaN=i 'he dipped us into', but u:'bitaN=i 'he dipped them into'. This last is one of the verbs that doesn't take -wa- in 'them' forms, but only lengthens the initial. Note also aN:'gubitaN=i 'we dipped them into'. Here presumably *wa-aNg-o-pithaN=(p)i. Her discussion of the causative is quite abbreviated and doesn't include objects, so I don't know if she encountered P12 a-wa- with them. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 17 22:43:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:43:30 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: I think Dorsey wrote morphemically, or as close as he could come to it, in the texts and dictionary. It might be worth checking his hand written notes on that point though. Bob > > > 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha > > > > Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface? > > I don't know what moitivated Dorsey to record it in this fashion. I have > to assume he heard a difference between ua' and wa, but I don't have this > form from elicitation. He also records first person agents as ua'..., so > he is consistant. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Jan 17 23:44:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:44:13 -0600 Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) Message-ID: John wrote: > I found "ni a-dsi wa-kshi tha" 'permit us to cross this water', for which > I tentatively offer: > > niN aci wa-ks^idha > water ??? cause us > > This lacks the extra a- of a-wa- in the same way that it is missing in the > speech of the contemporary Osage speakers with whom Carolyn has worked. > The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event > it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. You mean it might be the "at/in location" postposition? I.e. it might transcribe into OP as: ni'adi wakhi'dha ? If so, that ought to translate as "cause us/them to (be) in water". In another note, John points out that the -awa- form for P12 seems to occur in conjunction with an incorporated prefix. Perhaps it is not causative per se that does it, but only the "tightness" of the preceding element, which in the case of a postpositional phrase is too loosely bound to force/preserve -awa-, even if the following verb is a causative. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/17/2004 12:02 AM Please respond to siouan On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in > the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts. I found "ni a-dsi wa-kshi tha" 'permit us to cross this water', for which I tentatively offer: niN aci wa-ks^idha water ??? cause us This lacks the extra a- of a-wa- in the same way that it is missing in the speech of the contemporary Osage speakers with whom Carolyn has worked. I'm not sure the osrit* files in the Siouan Archives are the whole set of LaFlesche Osage ritual texts, but this is almost the only example of 'us' in them. The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. Osage has ks^ for kh before i. I'm fairly certain of the causative, in spite of LaFlesche's word boundary between ks^i and dha. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Jan 18 12:57:14 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:57:14 +0100 Subject: Syntax Message-ID: I'm already pondering on Dakota syntax for some time and would like to hear your expert comments on this (as you know, I'm not a linguist of profession). 1) Is the Dakota topic-comment pattern comparable to some extent to, say, the one in Arabic (Allah - hu akbar)? 2) Do you think that it is also underlying the way to form compound nouns (or verbs), e.g. sunkawakan etc.? 3) Has this pattern also influenced the adverb-verb or verb-modal verb relationship? (e.g. nizi oniwanyake -> as for: you are pale - you seem so etc.) 4) Forming compounds, many examples seem to follow this pattern (with head on the left side, e.g. Hoksila Wanbli - 'Eagle Boy'), what pattern follow other examples with head to the right side, e.g. Sunka Wicasa - 'Dog Man'? Is this Western, i.e. English influence? 5) Is left- or right-branching nomenclature applicable to languages like Dakota? Thanks in advance Alfred A.W. Tüting _________ http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de 'Tieh Meng Hen - Traces of Butterflies' Dreams' Small Anthology of Sung Dynasty Poetry (Germ.-Chin.) _________ My Favourite Poetry Poems in German, English, Rumanian, Hungarian, Chinese, Spanish, French, Italian, Yiddish, Lojban, Sindarin etc. (with translations) ________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 19 08:22:30 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:22:30 -0700 Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event > > it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. > > You mean it might be the "at/in location" postposition? > I.e. it might transcribe into OP as: > > ni'adi wakhi'dha ? > > If so, that ought to translate as "cause us/them to (be) in water". Exactly what I thought. Or perhaps 'cause us to be at (or arrive at) the water'. The other idea I had was that he might have misheard something like niN achi=wakhidha 'Cause to arrive here at the water.' > In another note, John points out that the -awa- form for P12 > seems to occur in conjunction with an incorporated prefix. Again, this is what I meant, though I might phrase it that the context for awa is when there is an incorporation, or, phonologically, when the inflected component is enclitic to to its grammatical complement. The main examples of a-wa- outside causatives so far are the "pseudo" Osage or, better, the "crypto" Omaha-Ponca forms in the LaFlesche Dictionary. From Dorsey's OP texts 90:61.15 s^e(')n(a)=a'wadhe 'destroying us' Here I think the accent marking essentially reveals length and thus the two-vowel sequence, cf. 90:256.12 s^e'na=wa'dhe 'destroying them', where no a- would be expected. I have changed the symbols and added =, but the accent, if not parenthesized, is the original. 90:197.6 e=a'wagaN=hnaN=i 'we are always so' 90:502.2 e=a'wagaN=i 'we are so' 90:438.14 e=a'wakkigaN=i 'they are like us' (reciprocal of preceding) 90:502.13 e=a'wawaN=i 'he caused it for us' 90:679.19 aNgu'=s^ti a'wagaN=i 'we, too, we are so' 90:420.2 z^u=a'wagdhe 'he with us' 90:442.20 sni=a'watta=i 'we are cold' This isn't exhaustive, and I;ve ignored duplicates. > Perhaps it is not causative per se that does it, but only the > "tightness" of the preceding element, which in the case of a > postpositional phrase is too loosely bound to force/preserve -awa-, even > if the following verb is a causative. The difficulty here is that we have only LaFlesche's dictionary to suggest that the awa variant ever occurred. We know that he's not always entirely accurate in representing inflections, and Caroline doesn't find awa in contemporary speech. It is possible that this is a recent development, but it is also possible that it is old, and that LaFlesche's a-wa- forms tell us more about Omaha-Ponca than Osage. I wish we had better exemplification of late 19th Century usage, but we have what we have. I tend to think that rather than suppose a complex conditioning for non-occurrence of a-wa- it is easier to assume that LaFlesche's dictionary should be overruled by modern Osage patterns, especially if his texts support modern usage in any way. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 07:32:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:32:53 -0700 Subject: Siouan word lists reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > axe maN'zephe > metal-sharp(?) > "sharp metal"? > (I'm not sure if the p is aspirated or not, > and would appreciate advice on this and on > my tentative "sharp" translation.) I believe it's ppe and what I heard was maN(aN)'spe or maybe maN(aN)'zEppe, with voiceless E. 'Sharp metal' is the usual explanation, though I'm not wholely satisfied with it. > axe handle maN'zephe-i'ba > axe-projection(?) While i'ba is also 'to swell; swelling', I think 'handle' would work here. This may be cognate with Dakotan ihu'pa. > base of an axe head maN'zephe-ppa-hi'de > axe-head-bottom > (I didn't notice it in the dictionary, but > this word implies that the word for axe-head > is maN'zephe-ppa.) That seems reasonable. > "adze" z^aN-i'-ga-goN > wood-INST-IMPULSE-trim(?) > "wood-trimmer" > > adze proper we'?e-z^aNi'gagoN > hoe-adze > > broad-ax maN'zephe-z^aNi'gagoN > axe-adze > > (The last three seem to imply a sharp-edged head > at the end of a handle, which is swung to rough-trim > lumbar. If the plane of the blade is parallel with > the plane of the swinging handle, as with an axe, > then it is an "axe wood-trimmer", or broad-ax. If > the plane of the blade is perpendicular to the plane > of the swinging handle, as with a hoe, then it is a > "hoe wood-trimmer". In English, we distinguish axes > from adzes in this manner, but have no general term > for a "wood-trimmer".) I wonder if the basic concept here might not be scraping or chipping or shaving. Probably not shaving, given the next, with a different root. > shavings z^aN-ba'-s?u [Omaha] > wood-PUSH-plane(?) > "wood shavings"? > > saw z^aN'-i-ba'-se > wood-INST-PUSH-cut > "something to cut wood by pushing" I got we'base, but the idea and the formation are the same. > saw, cross-cut saw we'magi'xe (wa-i-ma-gixe) [Omaha] > WA-INST-CUT-hiss(?) > > cross-cut saw z^aN'ttaNga-i'-ma'-se > log-INST-CUT-cut Might this be the two-handled kind? > hand-saw z^aN'-i-ma-se > wood-INST-CUT-cut > > hand-saw we'bamoN (wa-i-ba-moN) [Ponka] > WA-INST-PUSH-work(?) > (In Omaha, this word means "file") > > > circular saw u-noN'-sne > at a sawmill in-FOOT-split Were these conrolled with a treddle? Or maybe with a peddle mechamism like circular whet stones. > sawmill z^aN'-u-noN'-sne-ti > wood-in-FOOT-split-house > > (From the last two, it looks like unoN'sne is probably > a shortened form of z^aN'u-noN'-sne.) This seems reasonable. You wonder how readily z^aN could be ommitted everywhere? > sawdust z^aN-noN'-tube > wood-FOOT-powder > > (Apparently the instrumental prefix noN-, FOOT, governs > the action of a circular saw in a sawmill, and perhaps > other mechanical actions occurring low to the ground.) Or operated with a peddle? bittube is 'to rub to powder' (bi- PRESS) > log chain z^aN'-i-dhi-snu > wood-INST-HAND-slide > "wood snaker" Or 'drag(ger)'? > iron wedge maN'zewi'uga'sne (maN'ze-wa-i-u-ga-sne) > (iron-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-split) Sne seems to imply a lengthwise cut. > rasp z^aN-i'-ba-moN > wood-INST-PUSH-work > > moN-i'-dhi-xdha'de > ??-INST-HAND-?? > (Does anyone have any idea what moN and xdha'de might > mean here?) MoN occurs in the 'file' usage above, and I think it must refer to rubbing or rasping. The technique on these it to check under various combinations of instrumental and root in sources you have (Swetland & Stabler, LaFlesche, Dorsey, etc.), not scrupling to check other languages, too. It's tedious. Oh, I see, the second moN! Well, one idea is that m is the key below j, and j is how Dorsey wrote z^. Dorsey has gaxdha'de 'be buried in snow' in the texts, and we'axdhade (wa-i-a-...) is 'warclub with iron point', I suppose the kind resembling musket stocks? Maybe a reference to the rattail? > hammer z^aNwe'thiN (z^aN-wa-i'-thiN) [Ponka] > wood-WA-INST-hit > "wood striker" > > iron hammer iN'?ewe'thiN (iN'?e-wa-i-thiN) > stone-WA-INST-hit > "stone striker" Could the first be 'mallet' or 'maul'? The texts give just we'thiN, too. Also just iNwe'thiN for 'stonehammer'. > nails maN'zewi'ugadoN (man'ze-wa-i'-u-ga-doN) > metal-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-force > "metal things used to be pounded in" Or maybe 'metal with which one in-pounds things'? > screws maN'ze-u-dhi'-gdheze > metal-in-HAND-striped > > u-dhi'-gdheze > in-HAND-striped > > screw-driver wi'udhi'doN (wa-i-u-dhi-doN) > WA-INST-in-HAND-force > "thing used for drawing in" Note that wiu is what happens when you put wa on udhu (like Da iyo). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 07:41:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:41:49 -0700 Subject: Algonquian Flavor Terms Message-ID: For those who are interested in the typology of taste terms and dealing with the common uses of ProtoSiouan *sku're 'sweet, salty, sour'. I cited some of these in the 'oak' discussion. Anyway, Algonquian has some of the same conflations. > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: Here's about all I can piece together at this point, John. There's a reconstructed PA initial /$i:w-/ (Siebert) 'strong taste' that gives Cree /si:w-/ 'salty, sour' Menominee /se:w-/ 'sweet, sour' Ojibwe /$i:w-/ 'sour, salty' There may be other reflexes of this initial in other daughter languages, but I don't have any more resources for it. It apparently doesn't exist in Miami- Illinois. Or at least I haven't seen it. Then there's another PA initial */wi:$kopi-/ 'sweet', that gives, for example Fox /wi:$kopimina/ 'sweet corn' (lit. 'sweet berry') Interesting things happen to this initial when it moves into Miami-Illinois: Old Illinois /wi:skapeemihkwaani/ 'melon' (lit. 'sweet gourd, sweet pumpkin') (/eemihkwaani/ 'gourd, pumpkin') Old Illinois /wi:skape(e)kamiiwi/ 'eau salee' (salt water) [/-(i)kami-/ 'water'] Modern Miami-Illinois (with the same initial) /weehkapanki/ 'it is sweet/sour' /wiihkapaakani/ 'salt /weehkapahaminki/ 'it is salted' Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 08:16:30 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:16:30 -0700 Subject: 'Myth' Message-ID: Here's an interesting set: 'myth, traditional story'. There's usually another term for other kinds of stories, based on PS *o-ra'ke 'tell'. Te ohuN'kakaN 'fairy story, myth, legend' Sa hit[?]uN...kakaNpi 'traditional story; tell traditional story' (Presumably hithuN'ka 'mouse' is not connected?) OP hi=...gaN 'story; tell story' Os "hi'go" 'story' Presumably hi'koN with denasalization. Ks hi'yoge, hyoge (hi + last part of oya'ge 'tell', cf. *o-rake) 'myth' Qu ??? IO we'...kaN, wagi'kaN 'traditional story; tell traditional story' Wi waikaN' 'traditional story; tell traditional story' The intersting thing here is the set isn't regular. There are some variaitons in shape, to be sure, but the interesting thing is that the initial element hi (=> i in IO and WI, maybe after wa-?) is fairly constant, and the final element -kaN, but IO and Wi -kaN here does not match Da and Dh *kaN. Wi -kaN and IO -kaN are from *-hkaN. Only -gaN would match exactly. However, it is possible that the Wi and IO forms use a dative in *(ki)-k- or something like that, and that the preaspiration reflects the dative marking. IO's form inflects werekaN 'you tell story' which is certainly the dative paradigm. The details of Winnebago inflection of this form are not known to me. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 08:40:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:40:15 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: In conneciton with the preceding on 'story' and some other activities I noticed two non-wa nominalizations in OP. i'...e 'speak; speech, unit of speech, e.g., word' hi'...gaN 'tell traditional story; traditional story' I don't believe you can prefix wa to these forms, which are active intransitives and taken no patient. On the other hand, though Omaha-Ponca seems to lack a nominalization of udha' 'tell', this verb does take a patient, the thing told, and that can be replaced with wa. Forms for 'story' based on it have this wa, e.g., IO worage or Os (LaF) u'dhake. Note that IO and Wi do have wa-derivatives of 'story', but these seem to be dative, and perhaps the wa there refers to the indefinite recipient of the story. I also noticed Os wi'...kie 'orison, prayer, to pray', which is the wa-form for a dative i'...kie from i'...e. The OP verb i'...gie is glossed once 'to talk against him', but I think the form is generally 'to talk to or with respect to someone', so Os wi'kie may be historically 'to speak to or with respect to someone unspecified', with wa filling the dative slot. I present this perhaps somewhat tortuous argument in support of wa- as an indefinite patient present in nominalizations only when inherited from the verb in that capacity, and not as a general marker of nominalization or as an obligatory head marker in nominalizations. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jan 20 19:31:14 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:31:14 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: John wrote: > In conneciton with the preceding on 'story' and some other activities I > noticed two non-wa nominalizations in OP. > i'...e 'speak; speech, unit of speech, e.g., word' > hi'...gaN 'tell traditional story; traditional story' Is there any particular reason we don't have an epenthetic dh in i'e (not i'dhe) ? Is this word completely "normal"? > I don't believe you can prefix wa to these forms, which are active > intransitives and taken no patient. On the other hand, though Omaha-Ponca > seems to lack a nominalization of udha' 'tell', this verb does take a > patient, the thing told, and that can be replaced with wa. Forms for > 'story' based on it have this wa, e.g., IO worage or Os (LaF) u'dhake. What about the thing spoken? Wouldn't a language fill this slot? For a while, I was trying to build classroom sentences on lines of: X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) The speakers recently corrected me. I should have been phrasing that: X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! This would seem to mean that the verb ie can take a patient. I wonder if ie isn't primarily a verb. Like any other verb or verb phrase, it can be turned into a noun describing the action, in the way we might say "the speaking". The term we-e, however, if it existed, would mean "the thing used for speaking", if we suppose that wa is a head-marker, or "(something) used for saying things", if we suppose that wa is a patient marker. As implement terms, these words may just never have been coined. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 20 19:47:17 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:47:17 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: > Is there any particular reason we don't have an epenthetic dh in i'e (not i'dhe) ? Is this word completely "normal"? Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't occur WITHIN roots. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 20:32:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:32:53 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > i'...e 'speak; speech, unit of speech, e.g., word' > > hi'...gaN 'tell traditional story; traditional story' > > Is there any particular reason we don't have an epenthetic dh in i'e > (not i'dhe) ? Is this word completely "normal"? I've wondered about that myself and I have no explanation except that there is a word idhe 'to speak of, to promise'. Dakota has iye, where y, like dh is from *r - but maybe not in this word? - and some folks like to write iye in OP, but I figure this is awkward because (a) the y is quite automatic and (b) y only occurs in this sort of epenthetic environment. As a verb ie is quite regular and it's a good MVS set at least. > > I don't believe you can prefix wa to these forms, which are active > > intransitives and taken no patient. > What about the thing spoken? Wouldn't a language fill this > slot? Well, the language might be oblique, as it is, I think, in Russian. For example, I wonder if the i-prefix doesn't govern the language. I actually don't know how to say 'to speak Omaha' off the top of my head, oddly enough. I do think there is a place in the texts where they might say 'to speak Mandan'. I'll check when I can. > For a while, I was trying to build classroom sentences on > lines of: > > X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) > > The speakers recently corrected me. I should have been > phrasing that: > > X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! Yeah, but that's just an ablaut issue: i'...E, with E > a /__ IMPERATIVE. They apparently liked your complementation. > This would seem to mean that the verb ie can take a patient. At least the language is clearly some sort of argument. We can't test with the usual non-third or animate plural object tests. What does wi'e or maybe wee mean? Things said and quoted often behave rather atypically for objects. For example, I think the 'to say' verbs always incorporate a demonstrative - sometimes fairly obscure in the morphology - because this is co-referential with the thing quoted. 'To think' verbs are similar. If it's not a demonstrative with verbs of saying or talking, it's i or u, as in i'e or udha'. > I wonder if ie isn't primarily a verb. Like any other verb or verb > phrase, it can be turned into a noun describing the action, in the way > we might say "the speaking". The term we-e, however, if it existed, > would mean "the thing used for speaking", if we suppose that wa is a > head-marker, or "(something) used for saying things", if we suppose that > wa is a patient marker. As implement terms, these words may just never > have been coined. The i-locative - or forms homophonous with it - aren't always instrumental. I don't see how examples like ibahaN could be, anyway. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 21:26:14 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:26:14 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233986@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't > occur WITHIN roots. But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic. It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc. And you have datives like i'gie. Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume it's a locative. If the root is the root of (e=)e 'to say' (A1 ehe, A2 es^e, A3 a=i), then that is historically something like *he, and that h might explain why i'e is i'e and not i'dhe. However, the root is not inflected (within recorded OP) as A1 *i(p)he, A2 *is^e, A3 *i'(h)e. On the other hand, the first and second persons are what Winnebago and Chiwere have for first persons of ee' 'to say'. (Winnebago has hi-, of course, not i-.) How did that work in Quapaw? JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 20 23:00:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:00:44 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: Quapaw has confused the two roots, e:he and ie (which as in Omaha is sometimes written iye, but with the same result since /y/ isn't otherwise a phoneme in QU). I think that, although historically these may have been bimorphemic, synchronically they're roots nowadays. This is probably true of a lot of i- prefixed verbs. I- seems to have a greater amount of abstraction associated with it than the other "locatives". It is opaque with lots of verbs throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. Ie is just infixing like mani 'walk'. Otherwise I can't explain the failure to insert [d, dh, y] etc. in the Dhegiha dialects. Maybe there was a glottal stop once upon a time. . . Bob > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't > > occur WITHIN roots. > > But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic. > It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc. And you have datives like > i'gie. Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume > it's a locative. If the root is the root of (e=)e 'to say' (A1 ehe, A2 > es^e, A3 a=i), then that is historically something like *he, and that h > might explain why i'e is i'e and not i'dhe. However, the root is not > inflected (within recorded OP) as A1 *i(p)he, A2 *is^e, A3 *i'(h)e. On > the other hand, the first and second persons are what Winnebago and > Chiwere have for first persons of ee' 'to say'. (Winnebago has hi-, of > course, not i-.) How did that work in Quapaw? > > JEK > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 00:27:47 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:27:47 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: John wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: >> Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't >> occur WITHIN roots. > > But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic. > It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc. And you have datives like > i'gie. Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume > it's a locative. I would agree that ie is bimorphemic, at least originally, but I don't see why we would suppose the i- is i-locative rather than i-instrumental. The i'dhe word, meaning to say something about or with respect to something/one, seems like the i-locative form. But ie, at least as a verb, appears transparently instrumental: X e' X say say X UmoN'hon i-e' Omaha INST-say say it by using Omaha = speak Omaha Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 00:52:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:52:13 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I would agree that ie is bimorphemic, at least originally, > but I don't see why we would suppose the i- is i-locative > rather than i-instrumental. This is a terminological confusion. Although the i-locative is normally instrument-governing (especially in Dhegiha), I think I'm correct that traditional usage is to refer to all i, like a and o (or u), as locatives. Only the instrument-encoding prefixes are referred to as instrumentals (ga, naN, dha, dhi, ba, bi, ma, mu, na in Omaha-Ponca). I've never run into a Dhegihanist who was perfectly happy with this. In effect, the terms locative and instrumental name morphosyntactic classes, some members of which have shades of meaning not entirely consistent with the semantics of the traditional class name. Thus, locative i governs instruments, while instrumental na 'by heat' indicates a cause, not an instrument, and so on. The terms derive from the Riggs, Dorsey, Boas, Taylor & Rood (and Rankin) scholarly sequence. I've experimented personally with referring to things that act like "locatives" (including maN in OP) as "movable preverbs" while things that behave like ma= or mu= would be "fixed preverbs," but in the end its probably simpler to stick by the less satisfactory, but well-known terms. Occasional refinements like "inner" vs. "outer" instrumentals may be useful, and we can certainly reject Lipkind's "modal" (in the sense of transitivity category) for wa-, but on the whole its probably better to live with the existing terms. Incidentally, I think Boas invented locative. Dorsey came up with "second dative." I don't know who first called instrumentals instrumentals (in Siouan). I think Taylor & Rood came up with ablaut and vertitive, though I'm not positive, and maybe agent and patient. Maybe active and stative, too. I'm referring only to "first use in a Siouan context." From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 02:14:25 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:14:25 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: >> For a while, I was trying to build classroom sentences on >> lines of: >> >> X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) >> >> The speakers recently corrected me. I should have been >> phrasing that: >> >> X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! > > Yeah, but that's just an ablaut issue: i'...E, with E > a /__ IMPERATIVE. > They apparently liked your complementation. I don't follow. Ablaut generally affects only the end verb of the chain before the imperative particle. In this case, both examples are ablauted before ga. In the first sentence, I was understanding ie as a noun equivalent to English 'speech' or 'language. I was seeing it as the head of a noun phrase "UmoN'hoN ie", "Omaha speech" or "Omaha language". Then I was employing that NP as an adverbial noun to modifiy the verb e', 'to say', which ablauted to a' before ga. So I figured: X [UmoN'hoN ie] a' ga! X [(in) Omaha language] say IMP Say X in the Omaha language! The speakers apparently preferred treating ie as an instrumental verb in which the central meaning was still 'say'. X UmoN'hoN i-a' ga! X Omaha INST-say IMP Say X by means of Omaha! The aim in either case, of course, is to say "Say X in Omaha!" in Omaha! Rory From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed Jan 21 04:50:10 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:50:10 -0500 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > > This is a terminological confusion. Although the i-locative is normally > instrument-governing (especially in Dhegiha), I think I'm correct that > traditional usage is to refer to all i, like a and o (or u), as locatives. > Only the instrument-encoding prefixes are referred to as instrumentals > (ga, naN, dha, dhi, ba, bi, ma, mu, na in Omaha-Ponca). I've never run > into a Dhegihanist who was perfectly happy with this. > I agree that the terminology is confusing, and the semantics of the individual prefixes make it more confusing. I see the difference between locatives and instrumentals as distributional - the locatives can co-occur with each other, but the instrumentals are limited to one per stem, and the locatives can occur with the instrumentals. Linda From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 07:14:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:14:13 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > >> *X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) > >> > >> The speakers recently corrected me. > >> X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! > > In the first sentence, I was understanding ie as a noun > equivalent to English 'speech' or 'language. I was > seeing it as the head of a noun phrase "UmoN'hoN ie", > "Omaha speech" or "Omaha language". My misunderstanding. I took it as a verb in both cases. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 07:40:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:40:10 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: <1074660610.400e050263b3f@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > I agree that the terminology is confusing, and the semantics of the individual > prefixes make it more confusing. I see the difference between locatives and > instrumentals as distributional - the locatives can co-occur with each other, > but the instrumentals are limited to one per stem, and the locatives can occur > with the instrumentals. My morphosyntactic definition of locative is something like INCLUSIVE > LOCATIVE > {first and second person forms} This really works out to be just the three "one vowel" prefixes in most cases, though, in OP, the inclusive also precedes maN in maN...dhiN 'to walk' and maN...naN 'to steal', so, in principle, these two cases of maN (probably not the same maN, etymologically) could be considered locatives (or at least movable preverbs). The idea with movable preverb is that a preverb is something that precedes the pronominals, while a movable preverb sometimes "moves" to after a pronoun, specifically the inclusives. But the logic of both movable and preverb as terms have failings, and on the whole I don't think the movable vs. fixed thing works well. Instrumentals are a bit slipperier as a morphosyntactic class. For one thing, they are really two classses - inner ones (that follow pronominals) and outer ones (that precede them). The inner instrumentals are basically anything that comes between the root and the dative/suus/reflexive sort of prefix. But in practice there many other things that precede pronominals, and, on the whole, it is best to consider instrumentals as preverbs (outer instrumentals) or prefixes (inner instrumentals) that indicate instruments or causes or manners of actions. In the same vein one can think of locatives as things that add an additional object (or an instrument), though I am pretty sure that all of them actually do either this or pre-empt the principle object status, but with a directional (or instrumental) sense. In short, these are categories that any Siouanist can recognize as valid in a Siouan language, but which are hardly going to appeal to theoreticians as linguistic primes of some sort. I think every language family has such things. The Algonquian morphological terminology is certainly rather strange, but works fairly well for Algonquian languages. One might be able to do better, but so much has been written using the Bloomfieldian terminology that there is little point in making the painful shift to "better" terminology. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 08:00:28 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:00:28 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: I looked, but couldn't find any examples of 'speak (a language)' in the texts. In fact, I could find any examples of i'e with a complement. The sense of 'speak' with a complement seems to use ukkie or some derivative thereof, e.g., aNg-u-dhi-kkie 'we speak to you'. Unfortunately the texts only go so far as a source of examples. I did notice that 'we speak of', from i=...dhe 'speak of' is i=aNdha=i, showing the i there is a preverb, not the instrumental locative. On the other hand, 'we speak' from i'...e is aNdhaNa=i, in which aNdhaN is the typical inclusive + i-locative result. (Actually, for various morphophonemic reasons, it appears that the inclusive aN follows the locative i, subversive as that may seem from a Dakotanist point of view.) Anyay, subversion aside, it does appear that i'e begins with the instrumental locative. I've thought of another consideration relative to i'e appearing as i'e and no *i'dhe. I think this may have been Bob's point earlier, actually. As it happens epenthetic dh in "preverbal strings" occurs only between the elements of the preverbal string, e.g., between locatives and between locatives and pronominals. There are no cases of it occurring between the string and the verb initial that are coming back to me at the moment. Of course, you do find epenthetic dh in the causative's dh, and the paradigm of 'father' is Ps1 iNdadi, Ps2 dhiadi, Ps3 idhadi, Voc dadi=ha(u), in which Ps3 built on adi shows epenthetic dh in i-dh-adi. For some reason Ps2 built on -adi does not. Ps1 and the vocative are from another stem, -dadi. (Siouan has both the ata and tata versions of the generic human 'father' word.) From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 18:45:45 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:45:45 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists reply Message-ID: >> rasp z^aN-i'-ba-moN >> wood-INST-PUSH-work >> >> moN-i'-dhi-xdha'de >> ??-INST-HAND-?? >> (Does anyone have any idea what moN and xdha'de might >> mean here?) > > MoN occurs in the 'file' usage above, ... > > Oh, I see, the second moN! Well, one idea is that m is the key below j, > and j is how Dorsey wrote z^. Brilliant display of lateral thinking, John!! That's probably it. ... I dunno, I guess I just assumed that Dorsey never made typos. :) > Dorsey has gaxdha'de 'be buried in snow' in the texts, and we'axdhade > (wa-i-a-...) is 'warclub with iron point', I suppose the kind resembling > musket stocks? Maybe a reference to the rattail? I've run into another case of -xdha'de. For 'hairpin', he has two forms: noNz^i'ha-we'baxdha'de and wea'baxdha'de He notes that they are not yet used by the Omaha, and that Wdj. objects to the present use of the terms, so this was probably productive at the time. Maybe -xdhade could mean 'stick (v.)', or sticky? That's about as close as I can come to a concept that could unify all these cases. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 21 19:43:45 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:45 -0600 Subject: ie 'speak' again. Message-ID: It occured to me to wonder whether there are any verbs in these languages that begin with the vowel /i/ that do NOT inflect with the pronominals "infixed"? We cannot automatically assume that every verb that begins with /i/ has a 'locative, directional' or 'instrument' prefix. Some roots must simply begin with /i/. But if every verb that begins with /i/ inflects like an instrumental, i.e., infixed, then it appears that there has been analogical leveling, so that both instrumental/locative verbs AND verbs simply starting with /i/ are treated alike. And if this is so, then {ie} 'speak' may or may not be, or have ever been, bimorphemic. In other words, infixed conjugation wouldn't enable any of us to determine the morphemic status of i-. Only determining the meaning or function of i- in this particular verb would permit us (or native speakers) to do that. And I, for one, see no identifiable meaning or function for the /i/ of {ie} 'speak'. One can do virtually anything with enough semantic latitude, of course, but there's nothing there that is at all obvious to me. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 19:46:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:46:04 -0700 Subject: Siouan word lists reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Brilliant display of lateral thinking, John!! That's probably it. > ... I dunno, I guess I just assumed that Dorsey never made typos. :) I wonder if the BAE's typewriters had the modern keyboard? There actually are a few in the texts, though I forget where. Things like gc (gs^) for g- (gdh). I guess we have to consider that this might really be some unknown moN, though. > > Dorsey has gaxdha'de 'be buried in snow' in the texts, and we'axdhade > > (wa-i-a-...) is 'warclub with iron point', I suppose the kind resembling > > musket stocks? Maybe a reference to the rattail? > > I've run into another case of -xdha'de. For 'hairpin', he > has two forms: > > noNz^i'ha-we'baxdha'de and wea'baxdha'de ... > Maybe -xdhade could mean 'stick (v.)', or sticky? > That's about as close as I can come to a concept that > could unify all these cases. I wonder if the sense of -xdhade might be 'plunge into' or 'protrude from'? The ga- instrumental is used with actions by wind or current, and perhaps falling or deep snow might be in the same category. There are cases of instrumental roots that cover a range of somewhat connected meanings, too. (No specific examples in mind.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 20:11:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:11:09 -0700 Subject: ie 'speak' again. In-Reply-To: <003001c3e056$f53498a0$2db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > It occured to me to wonder whether there are any verbs in these languages that > begin with the vowel /i/ that do NOT inflect with the pronominals "infixed"? Well, idhe 'to speak of' differs in its treatment of inclusive aN, as I mentioned, but I don't know of any verbs that start with vowels that don't get handled as locatives or preverbs. One group of additions are roots that are or maybe just V, e.g., perhaps e in i'e, which might be *i...he, or, as you argue, *...ie. And then in OP the root of ai' 'to come' is just i (cf. vertitive gi, not *khi, and Dakota (hi)bu with the same stem. The verb 'to day' seems to be just e(e)' in the third person, but this is suspect of being contracted from *e...he. However, in the present context we need polysyllabic verbs with initial i. > We cannot automatically assume that every verb that begins with /i/ has > a 'locative, directional' or 'instrument' prefix. Some roots must > simply begin with /i/. But if every verb that begins with /i/ inflects > like an instrumental, i.e., infixed, then it appears that there has been > analogical leveling, so that both instrumental/locative verbs AND verbs > simply starting with /i/ are treated alike. And if this is so, then > {ie} 'speak' may or may not be, or have ever been, bimorphemic. In > other words, infixed conjugation wouldn't enable any of us to determine > the morphemic status of i-. Only determining the meaning or function of > i- in this particular verb would permit us (or native speakers) to do > that. And I, for one, see no identifiable meaning or function for the > /i/ of {ie} 'speak'. One can do virtually anything with enough semantic > latitude, of course, but there's nothing there that is at all obvious to > me. The verb does also seem to have infixed derivation, as in the case of i'gie 'speak against someone', and the i is accented, but apart from that, and a suggestion that somebody who can should try various sorts of complements with it (in various languages), I don't know how to counter an argument like this. It's certainly not unreasonable to consider the possibility that i'...e is reformulated from *...ie. Verbs of speaking and saying and telling are one of the many rather under investigated areas in Siouan. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 21 20:52:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:52:41 -0600 Subject: ie 'speak' again. Message-ID: > . . . but I don't know of any verbs that start with vowels that don't > get handled as locatives or preverbs. Right. Nor do I. But I don't think we can say that this means that every such verb actually has/had a locative (or instrumental) prefix. It's just that there's been massive analogical leveling and concomitant extension of the infixing patterns. This eliminates infixation as evidence for the presence of locatives/instrumentals, and we'll have to rely on other criteria. > The verb 'to say' seems to be just > e(e)' in the third person, but this is suspect of being contracted from > *e...he. Right. It is underlying e:he since it is conjugated e:phe, e:$e, etc. (where Omaha/Ponca eliminates the p). > The verb does also seem to have infixed derivation, as in the case of > i'gie 'speak against someone', and the i is accented, but apart from that, > and a suggestion that somebody who can should try various sorts of > complements with it (in various languages), I don't know how to counter an > argument like this. It's certainly not unreasonable to consider the > possibility that i'...e is reformulated from *...ie. Yes, that's the whole point. I remember John's remarking on the lack of V-initial conjugations in Siouan back when we were working on the comparative dict. project. This explains why, at least for the three most common vowels, i, a, o. They all require infixes (as if, but not because, they were locative). Intial nasal vowels tend to get an epenthetic *r or *w, depending on the initial vowel. As we know this leaves doublets like Dakotan yuNka and waNka 'be lying' Verbs like 'ask' and 'be sitting' fall into this class. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 23:27:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:27:09 -0700 Subject: ie 'speak' again. In-Reply-To: <001001c3e060$954a1b90$2db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > . . . but I don't know of any verbs that start with vowels that don't > > get handled as locatives or preverbs. > > Right. Nor do I. But I don't think we can say that this means that every such > verb actually has/had a locative (or instrumental) prefix. It's just that > there's been massive analogical leveling and concomitant extension of the > infixing patterns. This eliminates infixation as evidence for the presence of > locatives/instrumentals, and we'll have to rely on other criteria. Well, unless we have large groups of verbs in which the "locatives" seem functionless and the apparent underlying stem can't be plausibly etymologized, my inclination would be to leave it a mental note to be alert for such cases and go on treating locative-like vowels as locatives as the working hypothesis. Actually, i'e 'to speak' and uhaN' 'to cook, to boil' are the two main examples that some immediately to mind. I tend to think that the final -e of i'e is the final -(h)e of 'to say', though this is only in the nature, again, of a working hypothesis. Other possible examples: - *rut(e) ~ *(r)ut(e) ~ t(e) 'to eat' Another monosyllable: - *(?)o 'to shoot, to wound' The glottal stop stems all behave more like vowel-initial stems in most contexts than glottal-stop initials. It's hard to know if they are V-initial sems with occasional analogically extended epenthetic ? or ?-initial stems with frequent loss of ?. > > The verb 'to say' seems to be just e(e)' in the third person, but > > this is suspect of being contracted from *e...he. > Right. It is underlying e:he since it is conjugated e:phe, e:$e, etc. > (where Omaha/Ponca eliminates the p). I've noticed that the quotative verbs *???...he 'to say' and *???...ye 'to think' have initial *e (or other demonstratives) right across Siouan, but in IO they have i and in Winnebago hi, presumably from *i. With 'say' they have just ee in the third person. (I remember hihe and his^e in Winnebago for first and second persons.) Quapaw seems to have done something similar with 'say'. I think that this suggests that *i'...(h)e 'to speak' and *e'...(h)e 'to say' are probably etymologically parallel as well as semantically similar, and that *i is a distinct morpheme, though it isn't clear that it is the instrumental locative. It could also be the *i that appears in third person marking, especially possessives. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 23:36:49 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:36:49 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: John wrote: > I looked, but couldn't find any examples of 'speak (a language)' in the > texts. In fact, I could find any examples of i'e with a complement. The > sense of 'speak' with a complement seems to use ukkie or some derivative > thereof, e.g., aNg-u-dhi-kkie 'we speak to you'. Unfortunately the texts > only go so far as a source of examples. Well, how about sentences using ie without a complement then? Certainly i'e thE as a noun meaning 'speech' or 'word' ought to be common enough, but I'm having trouble thinking of how you would use ie as a verb except with implied or actual language or speech complement. Perhaps {ia' ga!}-- Speak! Orate! ? In class, I'm pretty sure we have been using UmoN'hoN ie from the beginning for 'Omaha language', and I don't recall the speakers ever objecting. (We have a vested interest here, as Mark will have to re-write his dissertation if we can't use ie with UmoN'hoN as a complement!) I would understand u-kki-e as 'in-RECIPROCAL-say', or 'say things to each other', 'converse', 'talk to someone'. This can also be translated as 'speak' in English, but the emphasis here is on saying things to somebody, or a dialogue. The word ie seems to be i-e, 'INST-say', 'to say by means of (some protocol)'. In this case, the emphasis is on the tools of speech, i.e. the words or the language. This conception in turn might extend to cover 'monologue' or 'oration', and hence 'speak' in that sense of the English word. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 22 02:31:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:31:56 -0600 Subject: ie 'speak' again. Message-ID: > Well, unless we have large groups of verbs in which the "locatives" seem > functionless and the apparent underlying stem can't be plausibly > etymologized, my inclination would be to leave it a mental note to be > alert for such cases and go on treating locative-like vowels as locatives > as the working hypothesis. The are lots of those, and i- is the biggest class. > Actually, i'e 'to speak' and uhaN' 'to cook, to boil' are the two main > examples that some immediately to mind. I tend to think that the final -e > of i'e is the final -(h)e of 'to say', though this is only in the nature, > again, of a working hypothesis. *e:he only reduces to e(:) in Dhegiha as far as I know. Maybe not even 100% there. Unless ie 'speak' retains the /h/ in one or another of the languages, I can't consider ie a reduction of i + he. And i- still doesn't make sense here even if the e < he. Boas and Deloria mention that there are lots of unanalyzable i- prefixes. I haven't looked at the o's and a's. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jan 22 08:34:17 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:34:17 +0100 Subject: ie <- i-yA Message-ID: Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g. going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the causative or the verb 'to go'. In my naive interpretation, this didn't seem too far-fetched and unplausible. Had I to invent a Dakota verb for 'speak' etc., I might do it this way ;-) But now, alas, I see that all this was nothing more than linguistic fancy and wishful thinking :( Alfred From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 14:16:07 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:16:07 -0700 Subject: ie <- i-yA In-Reply-To: <400F8B09.8030006@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had > 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g. > going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the > causative or the verb 'to go'. The Dakota verb iya' 'to speak' is inflected A1 iwa'ya, A2 iya'ya, A12 uNki'ya=pi. I think that if it where a causative it would A12 *i=uN'ya=pi, so this looks like it involves a locative i. In OP, and, I think, other Dhegiha, there are two verbs: i'e 'to speak (aloud)': A1 idha'a, A12 i'dhaa, A12 aNdhaN'a=i (?)i'=dhe 'to speak of, to say one will': A1 i'=adhe, A2 i'=dhadhe, A12 i'=aNdha=i The former matches the Dakota verb, allowing for changes in morphology like A1/A2/A12 a/dha/aN(g) instead of wa/ya/uN(k), i + a > idha' (vs. i + dha > i'dha), and i + aN > aNdhaN'. Plural marking =i vs. =pi. The latter form does look like mouth + CAUSE. Of course, as Bob argues, we have to allow for analogical recategorization. These analyses simply assess the forms at face value. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 14:23:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:23:45 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > In class, I'm pretty sure we have been using UmoN'hoN ie from the > beginning for 'Omaha language', and I don't recall the speakers ever > objecting. (We have a vested interest here, as Mark will have to > re-write his dissertation if we can't use ie with UmoN'hoN as a > complement!) Probably you're OK, but notice that the ladies you work with didn't correct you from UmaNhaN ie a ga to UmaNhaN ia ga until very recently. I think Omaha good manners might sometimes prevents correction of things. For what it's worth, I've also noticed that in English I hear people using complementation structures that I wouldn't use myself, and even though I'm a kind of captious, outspoken person I don't necessarily correct them. Ex. I hear "rob something from someone" where I'd say "steal something from someone" or "rob someone of something." I think off-kilter complementation structures just bother most people less than mangled morphology. For one thing, it's often harder for a non-linguistto explain what bothers them. And by now, of course, if there were a problem originally, things may have started sounding right that way, another standard elicitation problem. Enough repetitions and sometimes even the wrong stuff sounds OK. What I might do in a situation like this - and this is more instinct than vast experience - is to ask for unrelated sentences (to try to escape any "training" effect) like "I speak Pawnee." or "They were speaking Kiowa, so I didn't understand them." "In Dakota you say it about the same." and so on, and work up to "Please say ... in Dakota." Then, all you have to do is substitute Omaha for Dakota. Another thought, in a lot of places in America one talks a language rather than speaking it. I forget how it works in Nebraska. It wouldn't hurt to try a variety of sentences with talk, speak, say, tell, think, suspect, etc., and various argument structures. Slightly off topic, but I remember when working with Omaha speakers that if I said "How do you say 'I am hungry.'?" I'd usually get "You're hungry." but if I said "How would you translate 'I am hungry.'?" I'd get the first person. Another thing I noticed was that if I went through a paradigm I'd get 'I am hungry', 'you are hungry, too', 'he is hungry, too', and so on. In other words, the paradigm acted as a conversational context. I realized that a sequence of questions would build on one another whether I intended them to or not. > I would understand u-kki-e as 'in-RECIPROCAL-say', or 'say things to > each other', 'converse', 'talk to someone'. This can also be translated > as 'speak' in English, but the emphasis here is on saying things to > somebody, or a dialogue. The word ie seems to be i-e, 'INST-say', 'to > say by means of (some protocol)'. In this case, the emphasis is on the > tools of speech, i.e. the words or the language. This conception in > turn might extend to cover 'monologue' or 'oration', and hence 'speak' > in that sense of the English word. Verbs of speaking seem to me to a bit like verbs of motion. They don't translate individually, but as systems. You have to understand the parameters of the two systems before you can pick a term from one system to equate to the other in a given context. That's probably true of all vocabulary, but with some domains you can get further by ignoring the parameters and trying to match one word to one word (or two) and vice versa. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 15:03:33 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:03:33 -0700 Subject: Syntax of Speaking Message-ID: Rory asked about how 'speak' might be used without some sort of argument. The answer seems to be that mainly it means 'say something unspecified or understood out loud'. 90:102.4 i'a=ga speak IMP Go on! 90:148/14-15 kki s^iNgaz^iNga akki'wa i'e wakkaNdagi=hnaN=bi=ama and children both to speak they were forward only they say "And both children were quite precocious about learning to talk." 90:151.3 ihaN' e'dhaNba i'e naN?aN'=bi=ama, nu'=akha his mother too speaking he heard the man "The man heard his mother speaking, too." 90:195.20 i'dhae=hnaN=i you were speaking "You were saying something." To which the response is: 90:196.40 aNdhaNdha=b=az^i we did not speak "We didn't say a word." Those are a few of the numerous 'speak up', 'say something out loud' sorts of examples. In addition, I have found some examples that come close to complementation in spite of my earlier and premature claim that there were none. 90:196.15-16 i'dhae=hnaN=i. eda'daN ed=e's^=egaN i'a=i=ga you were speaking what you having said it say it "You said something. Tell me what you said." Here, an egaN clause acts as a sort of quasi-argument. 90:483.2-3 kki ni'kkas^iNga=(a)ma dhe'=ama umaN'haN=ama eda'daN i'e=khe=aN=s^te and the people these the Omahas what they speak soever s^aN' wabdhittaN maNbdhiN yet I work I walk "And these people, the Omahas, whatsoever they say I go on working for them." (or, "no matter what people say I go on working for the Omahas"?) This seems to show eda'daN i'e 'say something'. 90:684.1 i'e j^uba=xc^i idha'e wi'bdhahaN s^u=dhe'=dhadhe=tta=miNkhe words just a few I say I pray to you I will send to you "I will briefly petition you." Here we have a sort of cognate object (?) i'e i'e 'words to speak'. 90:748.10 ni'kkas^iNga ukke'dhiN bdhu'ga ua'wagikki i'a=i indians all to side with us he speaks "He tells all the Indians to side with us." This seems to involve CLAUSE i'e in a straightforward way, though as such it is quite unusual. Finally, I found this one example, or almost, of 'to speak Omaha', if not of 'to say X in Omaha'. 90:443.15 umaN'haN i'e=the thappi=b=az^i dhaN'z^a Omaha speech they did not speak well though, s^aN' ua'wagidha=i=the yet they told it to us John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 22 15:12:31 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:12:31 -0600 Subject: ie <- i-yA Message-ID: Well, the sound symbolism route is well-trodden! James Crawford published a paper back in the mid 70's on YA words for 'mouth, speak', etc. in a volume he edited on Southeastern Indian Languages. He found such terms all over the place in many languages. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred W. Tüting" To: Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:34 AM Subject: ie <- i-yA > Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had > 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g. > going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the > causative or the verb 'to go'. In my naive interpretation, this didn't > seem too far-fetched and unplausible. Had I to invent a Dakota verb for > 'speak' etc., I might do it this way ;-) But now, alas, I see that all > this was nothing more than linguistic fancy and wishful thinking :( > > Alfred > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 22 15:32:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:32:21 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > In class, I'm pretty sure we have been using UmoN'hoN ie from the > > beginning for 'Omaha language', and I don't recall the speakers ever > > objecting. (We have a vested interest here, as Mark will have to > > re-write his dissertation if we can't use ie with UmoN'hoN as a > > complement!) > > Probably you're OK, but notice that the ladies you work with didn't > correct you from UmaNhaN ie a ga to UmaNhaN ia ga until very recently. I > think Omaha good manners might sometimes prevents correction of things. FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the modifier preceded the noun). Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 16:09:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:09:10 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: <003b01c3e0fd$01d04540$16b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you > and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the > modifier preceded the noun). UmaN'haN i'e is Omaha language, too. The only question really is how to say 'say xxx in Omaha, and maybe 'to speak Omaha', albeit i'e being a verb as well as a noun offers a hint there. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 22 19:32:53 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:32:53 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: John wrote: > Probably you're OK, but notice that the ladies you work with didn't > correct you from UmaNhaN ie a ga to UmaNhaN ia ga until very recently. I > think Omaha good manners might sometimes prevents correction of things. I don't think such misguided good manners are too prevalent with us. If they think I'm clearly wrong about something, they generally shoot me down without mercy, and I encourage that. > For what it's worth, I've also noticed that in English I hear people using > complementation structures that I wouldn't use myself, and even though I'm > a kind of captious, outspoken person I don't necessarily correct them. > Ex. I hear "rob something from someone" where I'd say "steal something > from someone" or "rob someone of something." I think off-kilter > complementation structures just bother most people less than mangled > morphology. For one thing, it's often harder for a non-linguistto explain > what bothers them. I think this opens up the fact that grammatical rules are sometimes strict, and sometimes pretty fuzzy. Some native speakers themselves may not "get" all the rules. 'Rob' and 'steal' mean the same thing, except that the direct object of 'rob' is the person, and the direct object of 'steal' is the thing. But the expression "rob something from someone" is perfectly comprehensible and unambiguous, and it flies just fine for purposes of communication. Somewhere, someone failed to pick up on the difference between 'rob' and 'steal', and raised up a nest of kids in their own image; thus the language evolves. A usage like this may just not be felt worth correcting. One elicitation technique I've learned from Mark over the years is to ask: "Which sounds better, [formulation X], or [formulation Y]?" This method seems to work pretty well for culling gray-area cases like this. It makes it easy for the speakers to choose one or the other, or say they're both okay, or express dissatisfaction with both formulations and give us one that works. > And by now, of course, if there were a problem originally, things may have > started sounding right that way, another standard elicitation problem. > Enough repetitions and sometimes even the wrong stuff sounds OK. Argh! Yes, I worry about this. > What I might do in a situation like this - and this is more instinct than > vast experience - is to ask for unrelated sentences (to try to escape any > "training" effect) like "I speak Pawnee." or "They were speaking Kiowa, so > I didn't understand them." "In Dakota you say it about the same." and so > on, and work up to "Please say ... in Dakota." Then, all you have to do > is substitute Omaha for Dakota. Good advice! I'll try this sometime. > Another thought, in a lot of places in America one talks a language rather > than speaking it. I forget how it works in Nebraska. I can't speak for Nebraska in general, but either one works for me. "Speaking" a language is boringly high-brow; "talking" it is humorously low-brow. I think this is possibly a good example of grammatical fuzzy rules. To me, 'talk' is more immediate; 'speak' is more time-general. I would be inclined to favor "Do you speak English?" over "Do you talk English?", because I'm asking about the generality. But to command somebody, I might almost prefer "Talk English!" over "Speak English!", because the latter sounds more preachy-- like I'm commanding them to use English all the time rather than just on this occasion. But those are the grammatical rules of one native speaker. Another might understand 'speak' to accept a language name as a direct object, and 'talk' to be properly intransitive. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 22 21:41:07 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:41:07 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you > and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the > modifier preceded the noun). Yes, that's the way I was taking it at first too. That may still be the correct interpretation. See below. John wrote: > UmaN'haN i'e is Omaha language, too. The only question really is how to > say 'say xxx in Omaha, and maybe 'to speak Omaha', albeit i'e being a verb > as well as a noun offers a hint there. I worked briefly on this last night with one of the speakers, Alberta Canby. She was dealing with a persistent cough and losing her voice at the time, and she was preparing to go the the funeral the next day of a cousin who had been her favorite source for asking about Omaha words, so conditions were not ideal. My half-baked idea was that if ie was i-e, INST-say, "say by means of (Omaha)", as I favor synchronically at least, and if ukkie was u-kki-e, in-RECIPROCAL-say, "talk to one another", "converse", then it should be possible to combine the two forms as i-u-kki-e, INST-in-RECIPROCAL-say, => udhu'kkie, which should be able to take UmoN'hoN as a complement in the same way as ie. Thus: UmoN'hoN udhu'kkie == 'speak to someone in Omaha' After a couple of tries, she did accept udhu'kkie as a word. I then tried to build up from (hypothetical) e', 'say': At first, I tried to get "Say 'dog' in Omaha!" This failed, as the predictable answer to that was "s^i'nuda". When I tried casting the sentence in Omaha myself, leaving the English word "dog" in the sentence, I got corrected on grounds that "dog" was not proper Omaha; the word was "s^i'nuda". Okay, so forget situational logic and go for straight-up Omaha: S^i'nudoN UmoN'hoN ia' ga! This worked, but now she tended to gravitate toward a different formulation: S^i'nuda UmoN'hoN ie' thE a' ga! This is about what I had been trying before, except that she closed off the UmoN'hoN ie' with a thE, which is the standard way of changing a verb phrase into an abstract noun. Somewhere in there, I believe I tried, and was rejected on: S^i'nudoN UmoN'hoN a' ga! Then I shifted to ukkie. I think I started out asking her: "How would I say, 'Speak to me in Omaha'?", and immediately got: UmoN'hoN i'e oNwoN'kkia ga! (i.e. u-oN'-kki-e) This seemed clear enough to leave it alone, though there was no thE in this one. Finally I tried my acid test phrase for "Speak to (somebody) in Omaha!": UmoN'hoN udhu'kkia ga! She said you could also say UmoN'hoN i'e ukki'a ga! When I pressed for which of the latter two phrases sounded better, she said they meant the same thing, and that both worked. This doesn't prove my hypothesis about i-e, of course, since instrumental i- can be added to ukkie with no implication that it is the same i- as in ie. But it does raise a few more issues. First, ie thE, or UmoN'hoN ie thE, seems to be a commonly accepted way of referring to the language, and it may be most explicit and formally preferred. Mark has this formulation in most of his chapter titles, and I understand that he carefully worked it out with the speakers. Second, i'e, or UmoN'hoN i'e, can be used by itself, in certain contexts at least, without thE. John has been systematically referring to this word with the accent on the first syllable. My tendency has been to accent the second syllable. I'm starting to suspect that i'e is a clear noun, while ie or ie'/ia' is a verb. When I was first formulating the sentences, I was accenting the second syllable: X UmoN'hoN ie' a' ga! I was eventually corrected to: X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! But perhaps it would have been acceptable if I had said: X UmoN'hoN i'e a' ga! My notes from last night have the second syllable accented in the UmoN'hoN ie' thE phrase, but I only have one example and may have made an error as I was scribbling down the transcription. Mark's chapter names carry no accent mark on the ie. Possibly the accent is neutral in this case, especially if it is being sucked into UmoN'hoN as an appendix. Otherwise, we might have the more interesting possibility that UmoN'hoN i'e == "Omaha speech", while UmoN'hoN ie' thE == "Omaha speaking"-- the abstract nominalization of a verb phrase. Hope that gives us a little more to chew on! Rory P.S. I also asked about patient wa- in "us" and "them" forms. I was assured that there was no difference in pronunciation, and indeed both versions seemed to my dubious hearing abilities to be short. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Fri Jan 23 04:00:23 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:00:23 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: For what it is worth, in IOM one can say Baxoje/ Jiwere ich^e'. In fact, when we made the language study Book I & II in the 1970s, we titled them as such. However, quickly it became apparent that the use of -ich^e'- was redundant. The terms Baxoje/ Jiwere, according to context, means an IOM person, the tribe, the language or a crafted article. When asked of the elders a similar sentence such as you have been working on for Dhegiha, the responce was: Baxoje/ Jiwere iha'ch^e hagun'da ke. I want to talk/ speak Ioway/ Otoe. jgt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: Re: Complementation of i'e > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you > > and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the > > modifier preceded the noun). > > Yes, that's the way I was taking it at first too. > That may still be the correct interpretation. > See below. > > > John wrote: > > UmaN'haN i'e is Omaha language, too. The only question really is how to > > say 'say xxx in Omaha, and maybe 'to speak Omaha', albeit i'e being a verb > > as well as a noun offers a hint there. > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 06:34:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:34:16 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: <00b901c3e165$7139b660$d8430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > For what it is worth, in IOM one can say Baxoje/ Jiwere ich^e'. The CSD 'speak' set: Cr ili'i 'talk' Hi ire'? 'speak, talk' Ma kiraN?r 'tell' Da iya' OP i'e Ks i'e Os i'e Qu i'e Wi hit?e IO ic?e' ~ it?a (ablaut controls affrication here) Bi *(k)i'e 'say that (to him)'; *ade' 'to talk, speech, language' Of ile' 'speak' To tell the truth, I'm not positive the Mandan form or the second Biloxi one fit the set. The Mandan form in particular looks like the stem -dhaN (< *raN) that gets dragged into the conjugation of *e...he 'to speak' in Dhegiha, to supply the suppletive root of the inclusive form aNdhaN'=i. The IO and Winnebago forms, which Jimm's example called to mind, the editors suggest may involve a combination of epenthetic r and ? (glottal stop). When unglossed the forms take the standard sort of glosses we have been dealing with. As we've seen, all of these forms are inflected, mostly as actives, but the Hidatsa is an inalienable possessive. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 07:11:56 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:11:56 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > My half-baked idea was that if ie was i-e, INST-say, "say by means of > (Omaha)", as I favor synchronically at least, and if ukkie was u-kki-e, > in-RECIPROCAL-say, "talk to one another", "converse", then it should be > possible to combine the two forms as i-u-kki-e, INST-in-RECIPROCAL-say, > => udhu'kkie, which should be able to take UmoN'hoN as a complement in > the same way as ie. Thus: > > UmoN'hoN udhu'kkie == 'speak to someone in Omaha' > > After a couple of tries, she did accept udhu'kkie as a word. > ... > Then I shifted to ukkie. I think I started out asking > her: "How would I say, 'Speak to me in Omaha'?", and > immediately got: > > UmoN'hoN i'e oNwoN'kkia ga! (i.e. u-oN'-kki-e) > > This seemed clear enough to leave it alone, though > there was no thE in this one. > > Finally I tried my acid test phrase for "Speak to > (somebody) in Omaha!": > > UmoN'hoN udhu'kkia ga! > > She said you could also say > > UmoN'hoN i'e ukki'a ga! > > When I pressed for which of the latter two phrases > sounded better, she said they meant the same thing, > and that both worked. > > This doesn't prove my hypothesis about i-e, of course, > since instrumental i- can be added to ukkie with no > implication that it is the same i- as in ie. But it > does raise a few more issues. In the Dorsey texts there is an udhukkie, sure enough. Ukki'e seems to work out to 'speak to'. Though the kki does look like it might be an etymological reciprocal, there's no real trace of it in the glossing that I've ever noted. I'm tempted to adopt Bob's argument that not everything that looks like morpheme X is necessarily morpheme X. Maybe this u + kk(V) + ie. I have no idea what the kkV would be. Simple ukki'e 90:614.13 u'wakkia=bi=ama, ukki'abi iNs^?age=akha he spoke to them U. old man "Old Man Ukki'abi spoke to them." u'wakki(e) (undoing the ablaut) is wa + ukki'e => u'kkie with a pleonastic inserted Obj3p wa, this being one of the verbs that does that. Old Man Ukki'abi is a wizard in a series of Ponca stories. Note that his name is basicly a nominalization of Ukkie. There is also a reflexive possessive stem ugi'kkie 'to speak to one's own', which tends to add some luster to the possibility that kk(i) here is not the reciprocal, or at least not synchronically, since normally you can't combine the reflexive possessive with a reciprocal/reflexive. 90:601.12 iga'xdhaN=dhiNkhe ugi'kkia=bi=egaN his wife having spoken to her "Having spoken to his wife, ..." And, we also have udhu'kkie (wa form wi'ukkie) from i + ukki'e, though this example shows the i- apparently governing "the thing spoken of." 90:99.3 u's^kaN wiN ebdhe'=gaN e'=de udhu'wikkie=tta=miNkhe deed a I think but I will speak to you about it something I think a "Let me tell you something that I am thinking." The "deed a I think but" (or actually "deed one I think but") is Dorsey's interlinear glossing. The second version "something I think a" is my attempt. I believe u's^kaN "wherein there is motion" is essentially an indefinite reference to action. It appears a lot in somewhat mysterious ways that this analysis seems to make sense of. One more lexical use that I recall is u's^k u'daN, 'deed good' to use Dorsey's rendition, which was used once by Mr Clifford Wolfe to refer to a party, "a doings," to celebrate his return from WWII. In essence this is an analog of the probably morphosyntactically and morphophonemically impossible "wa-udaN" 'something that's good'. The e'de that Dorsey translates generally as "but" seems to me to be the analog of Dakota c^ha used to indicate an indefinite relative. In this case Coyote is about to make a proposition to his dupe, Cougar. === Note: I keep running across forms in OP that I'd like to write with the apostrophe of contraction. Unfortunately, I'm using apostrophe expediently for accent, but if I omit it in that sense to avoid confusion, just now I'd like to have written u's^k u'daN as us^k' udaN. Similarly, forms like ed' es^e 'you said something; what did you say' or naNb' udhixdha 'ring', and on and on. Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. (Pardon my very weak Italian.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 15:58:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:58:57 -0700 Subject: OP ukki'e 'to speak to'; X ie' (N.B.) ukki'e 'to speak language X with' Message-ID: Actually, it appears that in addition to having a reflexive possessive or suus form ugi'kkie, this verb also has a reciprocal ukki'kkie and a dative which probably has the form (?) ui'kkie. The reciprocal occurs in 90:86.5: ukki'kkia=bi=ama they talked to each other Also 90:380.2 ukki'kkia=i=the they talked together In conection with 'talk to' I located the desired example of "speak Omaha"! Dorsey 90:419.2 INda'daN ukki'tha=i a? wa?u'z^iNga, ehe'. What (enemy) tribe QUESTION (o) old wman I said PpaN'kka ebdhe'gaN. UmaN'haN ie' ua'wakkia=i. Ponca I think Omaha language I spoke with them. This is the aftermath of an attack on the Omaha women as they emptied their caches. In the event the Omaha-fluent attackers turn out to be Dakotas. Dorsey renders the verb 'they talked to me', which is plainly reversed in sense from what it is. And here, by the way, ie' 'word(s); language' does receive final accent in Dorsey. This also occurs in wa'xe ie'ska 'English interpreter' and otherwise in ie'ska 'interpreter' and in ie' u's^kaN 'word and deed' and ie' dhanaN'?aN 'when you hear (my) word(s)' and ie' ed=e's^e 'word() that you say'. Rory's suspicion that the accent shifts in nominal usage seems to be right on the money. The dative occurs in 90:613.4: iNwiN'dhakkie (u-iN-dha-kkie) you speak to me for her This suggests the stem for ui'kkie, though that isn't actually attested. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 23 17:41:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:41:20 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: > Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. Speranza is the only problem. Your recapitulating the cognate set reminded me of the WI and CH forms that suggest an earlier glottal stop between the 2 vowels. Another possible explanation for the hiatus. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 18:27:05 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:27:05 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D0123398C@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. > > Speranza is the only problem. Espanglish influence. > Your recapitulating the cognate set reminded me of the WI and CH forms > that suggest an earlier glottal stop between the 2 vowels. Another > possible explanation for the hiatus. Bob You mean for why Dhegiha doesn't have idhe? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 23 19:52:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:52:19 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: Well, if it were earlier /i?e/ we could say loss of the glottal stop postdated epenthesis of *dh. We know the two changes were in close competition because of the WI and CH reflexes that mix the two. I'll have to see how we reconstructed that in proto-MVS, etc. Not that I may not change my mind. . . . Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 12:27 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Complementation of i'e On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. > > Speranza is the only problem. Espanglish influence. > Your recapitulating the cognate set reminded me of the WI and CH forms > that suggest an earlier glottal stop between the 2 vowels. Another > possible explanation for the hiatus. Bob You mean for why Dhegiha doesn't have idhe? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 23 22:27:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:27:34 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: > P.S. I also asked about patient wa- in "us" and "them" > forms. I was assured that there was no difference > in pronunciation, and indeed both versions seemed > to my dubious hearing abilities to be short. It would be interesting if the second /a/ associated with this morpheme were lost unless an intervening morpheme were present, but somehow it doesn't seem logical. Is the individual you're working with one of those who maintains the minimal pairs for V length otherwise? I can't wait until I encounter some of these things in the Kansa recordings I'm retranscribing in my "spare" time. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 25 20:11:32 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:11:32 -0700 Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy In-Reply-To: <200401150514.i0F5E11M002194@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > I thought I'd give people some visuals on some of the things I'm doing with > the texts I'm digitizing. I posted the first chapter from "Brave against > the enemy - Thoka wan itkokhip ohitike kine he" (1944), part of the BIA > Indian life reader series, a bilingual english-lakhota modern story. ... Site: http://free.hostdepartment.com/i/imageStorage/nodes/sources/afraidofhawk_br ave/index.html Font: http://home.att.net/~jameskass/CODE2000.ZIP (download, unzip ttf and htm files - the latter explains installing the ttf file and details payment options: $5.00 made on the honor system for single user use) Comments Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format material is the OCR version? This makes me realize that Dorsey's two published text collections (and the LaFlesche ms texts in the APS) are probably as important to scan as the microfilm of the Dorsey ms material. I have tended to think of this project in terms of how to get access to something I have difficulty accessing, not in the larger terms of how to make it universally and conveniently accessible. This approach not only makes the material accessible to specialists who make a certain level of effort, but, really, to everyone. It solves the publication problem as well as the manuscript access problem. User Notes I had a little trouble at first grasping the navigational system - I've always been a bit dullwitted about icons - but once I had the suggested font installed and understood the icons (two arrows means further in a relevant direction than one arrow, like on music players all over the world) and saw the structure of the site: home page > index page > material pages, with material in one of the six presentation formats selected in the home page, and the index organized accordingly, I was OK. You can stay in one format, or switch back and forth as desired. It might help if there were some of those help boxes that you get by hovering, or if the home page said explicitly "Select a format." Maybe the index pages could say index page for format x. From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 26 07:59:18 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:59:18 CST Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy Message-ID: Hi John, Thanks for giving me some feedback! > Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format > material is the OCR version? Yes, it's a slightly proofed version of the ocr results. > This makes me realize that Dorsey's two published text collections (and > the LaFlesche ms texts in the APS) are probably as important to scan as > the microfilm of the Dorsey ms material. As I've been moving along in this project the scope of what is important to scan has been increasing exponentially. I want to set in motion the digitization of the most important sources for Siouan languages for now. But I think as people start to use this kind of thing later this year their sights will keep going higher like mine do. This is really a logical way to go with digitization. > I have tended to think of this > project in terms of how to get access to something I have difficulty > accessing, not in the larger terms of how to make it universally and > conveniently accessible. This approach not only makes the material > accessible to specialists who make a certain level of effort, but, really, > to everyone. It solves the publication problem as well as the manuscript > access problem. Oh goodie, now someone else gets it! This has been a goal all along, to be able to create a digital environment for this data that could be customizable for different peoples' need: students, scholars, speakers... Universal access is the way to go! It's all set up to work as a general digitization project for any medium or subject. And it's also intended to make what would seem like "different" projects (like Algonquian and Siouan language resources) be automatically intergrated to create larger databases and networks. e.g. a preliminary (and constantly updated or else a static) comparative Algonquian-Siouan dictionary could be automatically generated from coded xml text versions of the sources, and an xsl stylesheet written to display it as an edited/annotated version of the automatically generated data with extra data added where necessary, which would in turn become input for other derivative works. I'm sure most people aren't going to understand what I mean until they see it in action though. Soon. > User Notes > > I had a little trouble at first grasping the navigational system - I've > always been a bit dullwitted about icons - but once I had the suggested > font installed and understood the icons (two arrows means further in a > relevant direction than one arrow, like on music players all over the > world) and saw the structure of the site: home page > index page > > material pages, with material in one of the six presentation formats > selected in the home page, and the index organized accordingly, I was OK. > You can stay in one format, or switch back and forth as desired. It might > help if there were some of those help boxes that you get by hovering, or > if the home page said explicitly "Select a format." Maybe the index pages > could say index page for format x. Yes, having help available for every inch of the website will be very important. I plan to have a very detailed plain language help link on each page that will conditionally explain how to use the page based on what the page is and contains. Because of the way I'm designing absolutely everything in xml this will be real easy to do. I'll also have a preferences option so you can set the mode you want to work in, like "beginner's mode" which will have labels on everything so you can figure out the navigation easy and then get rid of the labels when you catch on. And tooltips will be there too (the text that shows on hover). In fact, these are only six options out of infinite possibilities. I've spent a lot of time working on theoretical design issues and data modeling because I have plans for the various levels of digitization that are extremely ambitious. The whole project is designed to be segmentable, so you can create versions with only a few features (e.g. only text or only images) or many features depending on your interests and what sources you want to include. It's also all designed to be progressive yet fully functional at all times, so new things can always be added and even works in progress can be accessible with description of what is and isn't done. Once it's up and running there'll never be any "in construction" annoyances. Like with the split screen idea. Eventually I want that to be a proofing screen, so anyone who wants to could work on proofing the ocr results of any page of any scanned source right online and submit their updates right from that page. The whole thing will be interactive as both a way to view and input data, kind of a really souped up archival version of shoebox. There's a ton of other aspects to this, but I wanted to at least get some of the simpler uses of what I'm doing out there for some people to see. Sometime later this year I think I'll have the core programming done and have a fully functional version available for a few sources, with a full manual / intro / guide describing the whole project, the technical details, etc. Take care, Patrick From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 17:22:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:22:00 -0700 Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy In-Reply-To: <200401260759.i0Q7xIXR010358@challenge.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format > > material is the OCR version? > > Yes, it's a slightly proofed version of the ocr results. It might be worth somehow pointing out in the modes what the difference is between image and text, in terms of implications. The words carry the meaning, of course, but there's a certain "imagish" quality to the text as it appears, perhaps due to the font properties, and it might help to be explicit. I'm impressed that the OCR software can handle more than the ASCII character set. In fact, given your choice of fonts, I assume it might be able to handle essentially arbitrary characters? The Microsoft extended set is extensive, but missing some critical combinations for Siouanists. I also wonder about the potential of the font for use with Siouan languages generally, at least in terms of modern "scholarly usage" and perhaps for older symbol sets. Clearly the disadvantage of specialized solutions like the Standard Siouan set I've prepared with the SIL software is that it doesn't use Unicode encoding. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 18:23:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:23:10 -0700 Subject: Pitch Accent Message-ID: In regard to pitch accent in Mississippi Valley Siouan, something that has come up some recently on the list and in associated discussions I've had off the list, I thought it might be interesting to report that Nancy Hall showed me last year some pitch traces of Winnebago words that, to my mind, more or less matched the phonetic descriptions of Winnebago accent given by Miner. The issue of how and whether Winnebago accent can be predicted is, of course, a separate issue that the traces per se can't resolve, and I understand Hall's own interest to be Winnebago vowel epenthesis. However, for me there were two interesting additions to Miner's picture in Hall's traces. One was that word initial high pitch sequences were not acoustically level, but drifted gradually upward, albeit from a low point higher than the end of the final low sequence. The other was that in one word there was a clear initial low sequence. This word was given as waruc^ in Hall's source, but looked to me like it might be waaruc^, given the relative length of the initial sequence. The word terminated in an abrupt rise and a sliding fall looking like a transition to and an abbreviated instance of the usual HL pattern. Perhaps MVS has initial L sequence words (LHL) as well as HL words, like Crow, though I believe that Crow has LHL words only with initial sequences of short vowels. I thought this might be interesting in view of our wa-prefix discussions and pondering whether some of the wa-prefixes might contrast in form as well as function. We had considered only length, not pitch behavior. Of course, this won't help the Dakotanists, as they report non-pitch-based accent. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 26 19:52:14 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:52:14 CST Subject: brave against the enemy and unicode Message-ID: On 26 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > > Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format > > > material is the OCR version? I thought I'd mention that a nice look is VERY important to me. Too many great projects get funding to develop databases and have no money or interest in a user interface that's comprehensible or a pleasure to use. I think both are essential if anybody is going to actually use it. > > Yes, it's a slightly proofed version of the ocr results. > > It might be worth somehow pointing out in the modes what the difference is > between image and text, in terms of implications. The words carry the > meaning, of course, but there's a certain "imagish" quality to the text as > it appears, perhaps due to the font properties, and it might help to be > explicit. Yeah, that's important too. The help functions (tooltips and help pages) will explain what's going on there. The TEXT version is a full text version formatted like the original source, that is, with its PHYSICAL structure (page breaks, page layout, typefaces, etc.). And the DATA version (these names are not set in stone) is a full text version that matches the LOGICAL organization of the original (chapters, letters of the alphabet for dictionaries...). > I'm impressed that the OCR software can handle more than the ASCII > character set. In fact, given your choice of fonts, I assume it might be > able to handle essentially arbitrary characters? The Microsoft extended > set is extensive, but missing some critical combinations for Siouanists. Oh John, I'm sorry to break the news, but your computer knowledge is becoming outdated! It was amazing for me when I read the article you and David did in "Making dicitonaries" about the technological history of the Camparative Siouan Dicitonary project. Things have changed so much, and they're about to change so much more. OCR software can work with any writing system you throw at it. Because you can train the software character by character and tell it to recognize several characters together if you like (arabic, chinese, eqyptian hieroglyphs). For non-ASCII characters I tell it to print the unicode code in the output rather than any the character itself, so I don't have to mess with font issues. You can even recognize characters that don't exist in any font yet, just give them a code. OCR has nothing to do with fonts basically, so you're not restrained by what fonts you have. It's pattern recognition, not matching printed characters with fonts on your computer. > I also wonder about the potential of the font for use with Siouan > languages generally, at least in terms of modern "scholarly usage" and > perhaps for older symbol sets. Clearly the disadvantage of specialized > solutions like the Standard Siouan set I've prepared with the SIL software > is that it doesn't use Unicode encoding. Yes, all those cumbersome and idiosyncratic fonts are not really the best way to go anymore. On the one hand, creating a new font is ridiculously easy now, there's cheap easy to use software. And you can append characters to any font you want. But unicode offers such a wide range of characters and combining diacritics anyway, though it'll take a few years before there's more fonts like Code2000 that support the full unicode range (95,221 characters so far). I plan on developing a font for the project that can be added to as needed, and will be free. But remember that as far as anything printed, it can be OCR'd just fine - you don't have to HAVE the quirky font for the OCR to recognize the characters consistently, you just tell the software what to call the character. And if it's already a text file, you can do find and replace to automatically convert to unicode in an instant. It's really worth doing some reading on the Unicode website: http://www.unicode.org/ And here's another very useful font site: http://www.identifont.com/ Ciao, Patrick From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jan 26 20:03:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:03:20 -0600 Subject: Pitch Accent Message-ID: Actually Deloria says Dakotan speakers listen primarily for pitch. I ran across her statement in B&D 1941. As far as I can tell in my field recordings, falling pitch on a final syllable is automatic unless some other syllable is accented. Falling pitch on an initial syllable entails the presence of a long vowel in Kaw -- actually, an over-long vowel, as the contour pitch seems to cause extra lengthening of the syllable (This is for non-monosyllables). More to come as I encounter it. I think the nature of accent is one of the biggest holes in Siouan phonological studies. Unfortunately a lot of our (read: my) recordings don't or didn't make the necessary attempts to avoid list-intonation, especially when going over minimal pairs with speakers. Bob > I thought this might be interesting in view of our wa-prefix discussions and pondering whether some of the wa-prefixes might contrast in form as well as function. We had considered only length, not pitch behavior. Of course, this won't help the Dakotanists, as they report non-pitch-based accent. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 20:50:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:50:02 -0700 Subject: Pitch Accent In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DC7@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Actually Deloria says Dakotan speakers listen primarily for pitch. I > ran across her statement in B&D 1941. Aha! > As far as I can tell in my field recordings, falling pitch on a final > syllable is automatic unless some other syllable is accented. Falling > pitch on an initial syllable entails the presence of a long vowel in Kaw > -- actually, an over-long vowel, as the contour pitch seems to cause > extra lengthening of the syllable (This is for non-monosyllables). More > to come as I encounter it. This is precisely what I noticed in Omaha-Ponca. Falling pitch on CV## in CV' and CVCV' words, e.g., kke' 'turtle' or ttabe' 'ball', and in CV'-V-C... words (typically inflected) across morpheme sequences, e.g., a'-a-gdhiN 'I sat on it' or mu'-a-se 'I cut it off by shooting' (more like [mwaase] with falling on aa). You don't get falls in bisyllables with initial accent (CV'CV) in longer words with second syllable accent, typically inflected (CV-CV'CV), or in words with initial accent like a'gdhiN 'he sat on it' (CV'C...) or mu'se 'he cut it by shooting'. If we write long vowels as two moras, each V, and assume that initial accent requires an initial long vowel, then these work out as CV(V)^, CVCV^, (C)VV'-V(^)-C..., CVV'CV, CV-CV'CV, (C)VV'-V(^)-C... From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 23:25:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: Pitch Accent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > This is precisely what I noticed in Omaha-Ponca. Falling pitch on CV## in > CV' and CVCV' words, e.g., kke' 'turtle' or ttabe' 'ball', and in > CV'-V-C... words (typically inflected) across morpheme sequences, e.g., > a'-a-gdhiN 'I sat on it' or mu'-a-se 'I cut it off by shooting' (more like > [mwaase] with falling on aa). You don't get falls in bisyllables with > initial accent (CV'CV) in longer words with second syllable accent, > typically inflected (CV-CV'CV), or in words with initial accent like > a'gdhiN 'he sat on it' (CV'C...) or mu'se 'he cut it by shooting'. If we > write long vowels as two moras, each V, and assume that initial accent > requires an initial long vowel, then these work out as CV(V)^, CVCV^, > (C)VV'-V(^)-C..., CVV'CV, CV-CV'CV, (C)VV'-V(^)-C... I should add that theorizing of this nature is obviously secondary to listening to vowel length vs. accent, however manifested. Also, I've noticed that Ken Miner's Winnebago data treat oppositions like OP aa'agdhiN 'I sat on' vs. aa'gdhiN 'he sat on' (V^CV vs. V'CV, with ^ for falling pitch) in terms of VVCV' vs. VCV' (after the accentual shift) and also that V1V1 + V2 is always shown as reducing to V1V2 there. Also, though it's not specifically relevant to your Kaw investigations, it looks to me as if each of the branches of MVS has to have distinct adjustments of length and accentual pattern. I think only Dhegiha treats some locatives as long (even when not fused with wa) and Dakotan and the others have distinct ways of treating *CV(V)'Ce or accent in compounds, etc. Also, it looks like Dhegiha supports accent on enclitics in some contexts. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 27 15:40:01 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:40:01 -0600 Subject: Pitch Accent Message-ID: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Actually Deloria says Dakotan speakers listen primarily for pitch. I > > ran across her statement in B&D 1941. > Aha! I *may* have cited this by page number in the paper in the WORD volume. It was in the draft I read in Melbourne. Checking it now, the wording isn't quite as I had remembered, but here it is. I think it makes a pretty good case for pitch accent. From the version of the Word paper I read in Melbourne: Languages of the Mississippi Valley Siouan subgroup have most often been described as having "stress", with the implication that accent in Dakotan and Dhegihan is amplitude-based. Boas and Deloria (1941:21) state that "Stress accent plays an important role in Dakota." However they go on to point out that "Syllables bearing the main accent have a high pitch. In rapid speech discrimination between accented and unaccented syllables or those having a secondary accent may be recognized more readily by pitch than by stress. Miss Deloria decides in all doubtful cases the question whether the syllables are accented or not, by pitch." Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 27 20:55:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:55:19 -0600 Subject: Minnesota funding available. Message-ID: While the vast majority of professional linguists on this list get the SSILA Newsletter, I know some members do not, so I'm forwarding this from the latest SSILA mailing. I know nothing about the group personally, but it might be of help to groups involved in revitalization in the North Country. Bob -------------------------------------------------------- Foundation Supports Language Revitalization in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The Grotto Foundation of Minneapolis, in partnership with community leaders and language activists, has made a long-term commitment to the revitalization and restoration of Minnesota's indigenous languages, in particular Ojibwe and Dakota, within Native families and communities. Resources will be used to seed and nurture viable community programs and initiatives that show promise in producing new Native language speakers; have potential for long-lasting family and community impact; and demonstrate the capacity to sustain language revitalization efforts beyond initial Grotto Foundation support. Resources are targeted to the following priority areas: (1) Promising indigenous language revitalization models, including master-apprentice programs, immersion schools, language nests, community language societies or language support organizations, teacher training programs, and innovative new approaches. (2) Community planning initiatives, including research projects that prepare a Native community to produce new and younger Native language speakers. (3) Curriculum development projects in all areas of Native language instruction. (4) Collaborative efforts, information sharing, and technical assistance. Eligible to apply are Federally recognized Indian tribes, colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups that have experience and commitment in service to Native Americans in the Minnesota region. Approximately $300,000 is available on an annual basis, and grants will typically range from $10,000 to $50,000 for one year. The next application deadline will be March 15, 2004. For further information contact: Gabrielle Strong, Program Officer, Grotto Foundation, W-1050 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota St, St. Paul, MN 55101-1312 (gstrong at grottofoundation.org; 763/277-3436). Visit the program webpage at: http://www.grottofoundation.org/native_fset.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alber033 at tc.umn.edu Tue Jan 27 21:32:59 2004 From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:32:59 -0600 Subject: Minnesota funding available. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233999@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: The Grotto Foundation has been a strong and much needed advocate of native language interests in the state of Minnesota over the past four years. They have co-sponsored two important language conferences with the Department of American Indian Studies at UofM-Twin Cities. The first focused on efforts to revitalize Dakota language programming in schools and communities region-wide, and the second addressed the different Dakota and Ojibwe language initiatives that Grotto has funded in Minnesota and Wisconsin in recent years. >While the vast majority of professional linguists on this list get >the SSILA Newsletter, I know some members do not, so I'm forwarding >this from the latest SSILA mailing. I know nothing about the group >personally, but it might be of help to groups involved in >revitalization in the North Country. > >Bob > >-------------------------------------------------------- >Foundation Supports Language Revitalization in Minnesota >-------------------------------------------------------- > >The Grotto Foundation of Minneapolis, in partnership with community >leaders and language activists, has made a long-term commitment to >the revitalization and restoration of Minnesota's indigenous >languages, in particular Ojibwe and Dakota, within Native families >and communities. Resources will be used to seed and nurture viable >community programs and initiatives that show promise in producing >new Native language speakers; have potential for long-lasting family >and community impact; and demonstrate the capacity to sustain >language revitalization efforts beyond initial Grotto Foundation >support. > >Resources are targeted to the following priority areas: > >(1) Promising indigenous language revitalization models, including >master-apprentice programs, immersion schools, language nests, >community language societies or language support organizations, >teacher training programs, and innovative new approaches. > >(2) Community planning initiatives, including research projects that >prepare a Native community to produce new and younger Native >language speakers. > >(3) Curriculum development projects in all areas of Native language >instruction. > >(4) Collaborative efforts, information sharing, and technical assistance. > >Eligible to apply are Federally recognized Indian tribes, colleges >and universities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups that >have experience and commitment in service to Native Americans in the >Minnesota region. Approximately $300,000 is available on an annual >basis, and grants will typically range from $10,000 to $50,000 for >one year. > >The next application deadline will be March 15, 2004. > >For further information contact: Gabrielle Strong, Program Officer, >Grotto Foundation, W-1050 First National Bank Building, 332 >Minnesota St, St. Paul, MN 55101-1312 (gstrong at grottofoundation.org; >763/277-3436). Visit the program webpage at: > > >http://www.grottofoundation.org/native_fset.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 28 17:46:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:46:38 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: I've had one of those layman's questions that is hard to answer. We have an agricultural experimental station in Central Kansas called the "Konza Prairie" where they work on varieties of grasses. They want to know how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) yield any insight. I made the point that if you were born, raised and lived all your life on the prairie, you might not actually have a name for it. It's just "home". Similarly, if the world were covered with water, we wouldn't have a word for 'ocean'. I also mentioned that there is a word in Quapaw and Kaw that refers generally to a flat land without trees, but that it is generally thought of as referring to 'flood plain' along a watercourse. The word is /tteghe'/ in Quapaw and /cceghe'/ in Kansa. I think La Flesche's Osage has the latter form with /c/ representing [ts] instead of [c^] in that language. Has anyone else encountered a good term describing the broad expanse of grasslands we find in the prairie/plains? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jan 28 17:58:46 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:58:46 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: It may not help, but Lak. uses the word oblaye 'flat place' for 'prairie'. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I've had one of those layman's questions that is hard to answer. We > have an agricultural experimental station in Central Kansas called the > "Konza Prairie" where they work on varieties of grasses. They want to > know how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. > > I made the point that if you were born, raised and lived all your life > on the prairie, you might not actually have a name for it. It's just > "home". Similarly, if the world were covered with water, we wouldn't > have a word for 'ocean'. > > I also mentioned that there is a word in Quapaw and Kaw that refers > generally to a flat land without trees, but that it is generally thought > of as referring to 'flood plain' along a watercourse. The word is > /tteghe'/ in Quapaw and /cceghe'/ in Kansa. I think La Flesche's Osage > has the latter form with /c/ representing [ts] instead of [c^] in that > language. Has anyone else encountered a good term describing the broad > expanse of grasslands we find in the prairie/plains? > > Bob > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jan 28 19:09:57 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:09:57 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus Message-ID: I'm probably headed in the wrong direction asking this of the Siouan list, but does anyone have any idea about the etymology of hoppas/hoppus or know of any examples of its use? It refers to some sort of backpack, usually mentioned in Indian or frontier contexts, from late 18c on, mostly in the NE U.S. Thanks, Alan From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jan 28 19:05:16 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:05:16 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. Canadian French and American English 'prairie' refers to grassy areas ranging in size from a small meadow to a great plain. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 19:07:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:07:44 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I've had one of those layman's questions that is hard to answer. We > have an agricultural experimental station in Central Kansas called the > "Konza Prairie" where they work on varieties of grasses. They want to > know how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. I suppose in a pinch you could use something like "Kaw country." > I made the point that if you were born, raised and lived all your life > on the prairie, you might not actually have a name for it. It's just > "home". Similarly, if the world were covered with water, we wouldn't > have a word for 'ocean'. True, but I think all of the Dhegiha groups were aware of an environmental contrast between bottomlands and their adjacent bluffs and then the flatter lands to the west. > I also mentioned that there is a word in Quapaw and Kaw that refers > generally to a flat land without trees, but that it is generally thought > of as referring to 'flood plain' along a watercourse. I think that's the original sense of prairie in English, too, e.g., as it is used in Lewis & Clark. They refer repeatedly to seeing "a beautiful (or some other description of) prairie." From French placenames like Prairie du Chien I think that prairie must be a French loanword in English. Was it maybe something like a "water meadow"? I suppose this got gradually extended to refer to all western grasslands, and then specialized to refer specifically to tall grass grasslands. At least I think today that ecologists today oppose prairie and steppe, though steppe is only used in English with reference to Asia and as a specialist's term. > Has anyone else encountered a good term describing the broad expanse of > grasslands we find in the prairie/plains? I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 28 19:41:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:41:04 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: > True, but I think all of the Dhegiha groups were aware of an environmental contrast between bottomlands and their adjacent bluffs and then the flatter lands to the west. I think so too. That's basically why I don't like /tteghe'/ as a translation. There was a Kaw village /ccegho:'liN/ 'they live in the flood plain' that specifically signals that it was in those lowlands. > I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. I did mention the thiNta/thiNtowaN 'Teton' use but missed the related (?) Omaha term. I did search the Dorsey 1890 texts but found no reference to prairie except in things like prairie chicken/hen. Same for plains. Thanks for the suggestions. But From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 19:51:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a > somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. > > I did mention the thiNta/thiNtowaN 'Teton' use but missed the related > (?) Omaha term. I did search the Dorsey 1890 texts but found no > reference to prairie except in things like prairie chicken/hen. Same > for plains. I think Dorsey may gloss in land or earth or something like that. Check t.oNdse in LaFlesche. I think I remember something ozo (uzo) vs. ttaNde for lowland vs. upland woods in Quapaw. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 19:46:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:46:39 -0700 Subject: hoppas / hoppus In-Reply-To: <40180905.1040801@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > I'm probably headed in the wrong direction asking this of the Siouan > list, but does anyone have any idea about the etymology of hoppas/hoppus > or know of any examples of its use? It refers to some sort of backpack, > usually mentioned in Indian or frontier contexts, from late 18c on, > mostly in the NE U.S. In that shape it might be Winnebago, because of the ho- initial and lack of a final vowel. Ho- is the Winnebago version of *o- 'in, into', which is a common enough initial morpheme of words for containers. I don't recognize the word off hand, but will look further. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jan 28 19:43:14 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:14 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I think that's the original sense of prairie in English, too, e.g., as it > is used in Lewis & Clark. They refer repeatedly to seeing "a beautiful > (or some other description of) prairie." From French placenames like > Prairie du Chien I think that prairie must be a French loanword in > English. You're right about the borrowing. And from my forthcoming Lewis & Clark lexicon: PRAIRIE A treeless, grassy area, ranging in area from a few acres to many square miles, from a meadow to the Great Plains. Prairie was originally a French word for ‘meadow’. a Small Preree on the Larbd. Side [12 Dec 03 WC 2.130] the first 5 miles of our rout laid through a beautifull high level and fertile prarie which incircles the town of St. Louis [20 May 04 ML 2.240] Camped in a Prarie on the L. S.composed of good land and plenty of water roleing & interspursed with points of timbered land, Those Praries are not like those…E. of the Mississippi Void of every thing except grass, they abound with Hasel Grapes & a wild plumb…I Saw great numbers of Deer in the Praries [10 Jun 04 WC 2.292] on the South Side is a beuautiful Bottom prarie which will contain about 2000 acres of Land covered with wild rye and wild potatoes. [10 Jul 04 JO 9.023] crossed thro: the plains…with the view of finding Elk, we walked all day through those praries without Seeing any [20 Jul 04 WC 2.397] those Indians are now out in the praries…Hunting the buffalow [20 Jul 04 WC 2.399] The Prairie are not as one would suppose from the name, meadows or bottoms[,] but a sort of high plain…without timber…This Prairie ground extends from the Wabash to the Mountains [Nicholas Biddle in Jackson Letters (ed. 2) 2.507] From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jan 28 20:53:52 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:53:52 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <401807EC.8050200@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Mrs. Holding (Osage) always said that the name for Hominy district zaaNce'oliiN was 'living on the prairie' (oliiN' is 'live, dwell'). I think LF says "living in the upland forest" in this instance, but she said that was wrong, insisted on 'prairie' or 'country' which she felt to be the same. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:05 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Word for 'prairie'? Rankin, Robert L wrote: > how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. Canadian French and American English 'prairie' refers to grassy areas ranging in size from a small meadow to a great plain. Alan From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Jan 28 21:43:01 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:43:01 EST Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: The Crow word is ammachu'hke < awa' land + ala 'place where' + ch'uhka 'flat' Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 28 22:04:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:04:30 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: Kaw /zaNje/ is 'upland forest' and the village /zaNjo:'liN/ is usually given as 'they live in the forest'. Kaw /ttaNje/ is 'land like up on a hill/ according to Mrs. Rowe. It's possible that either of these terms might be extended, but the one with /z/ seems to refer to an area with lots of trees. Both Dakota and Crow seem to translate 'flatland', but I don't have an exact Dhegiha equivalent. Again, thanks to everyone for the suggestions. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:53 PM Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie'? > Mrs. Holding (Osage) always said that the name for Hominy district > zaaNce'oliiN was 'living on the prairie' (oliiN' is 'live, dwell'). I think > LF says "living in the upland forest" in this instance, but she said that > was wrong, insisted on 'prairie' or 'country' which she felt to be the same. > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:05 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Word for 'prairie'? > > > Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > > how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > > yield any insight. > > Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) > meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. > > Canadian French and American English 'prairie' refers to grassy areas > ranging in size from a small meadow to a great plain. > > Alan > > From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 22:20:49 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:20:49 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: In HoChunk: 'hoska / mooska' refer to an opening. It is sometimes glossed as prairie, but I have the sense it refers more to a natural opening in a forest. 'maNaNx' is a clear field. Implies a broader expanse that is totally clear. Maybe this would be the more appropriate term for prairie. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 22:15:15 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:15:15 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus Message-ID: >In that shape it might be Winnebago, because of the ho- initial and lack >of a final vowel. Ho- is the Winnebago version of *o- 'in, into', which >is a common enough initial morpheme of words for containers. I don't >recognize the word off hand, but will look further. Not likely in HoChunk. 'hopase' is a corner. 'hopahas' is to chase towards something, drive something (like herding animals). ' paNaN' is a bag. But backpack is usually wiik'ii. A device used to carry something on the back. I have two native speakers sitting here wiyth me, and they can't make heads nor tails out of hoppas/hoppus, even though they gave it a good try. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jan 28 22:13:42 2004 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:13:42 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The Crow word is ammachu'hke < awa' land + ala 'place where' + ch'uhka 'flat' > >Randy In Hidatsa it is awacuhke . John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 22:52:50 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:52:50 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <401810D2.4070502@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > And from my forthcoming Lewis & Clark lexicon: > > PRAIRIE A treeless, grassy area, ranging in area from a few acres to > many square miles, from a meadow to the Great Plains. Prairie was > originally a French word for ?meadow?. > > a [12 Dec 03 WC 2.130] > > the first 5 miles of our rout laid through fertile prarie which incircles the town of St. Louis> [20 May 04 ML > 2.240] > > Camped in a composed of good land and plenty of water > roleing & interspursed with points of timbered land, not like those?E. of the Mississippi> Void of every thing except grass, > they abound with Hasel Grapes & a wild plumb?I Saw great numbers of Deer > in the Praries [10 Jun 04 WC 2.292] > > > which will contain about > 2000 acres of Land covered with wild rye and wild potatoes. [10 Jul 04 > JO 9.023] > > crossed thro: the plains?with the view of finding Elk, we walked all day > through those praries without Seeing any [20 Jul 04 WC 2.397] > those Indians are now out in the praries?Hunting the buffalow [20 Jul 04 > WC 2.399] > > The bottoms[,]> but a sort of high plain?without timber?This Prairie ground > extends from the Wabash to the Mountains [Nicholas Biddle in Jackson > Letters (ed. 2) 2.507] There seems to be a certain assumption that a prairie ought to be along a river, or, as it is often said, in a bottom. See added <> above. Of course, except in the Biddle quotation, it could be argued that a voyage along a stream imposes a chance collocation of prairie and streamside, while the 20 Jul 04 quotation from LC seems not to involve a streamside. Of course, the progression from streamside to grassland in general may have begun in LC's usage or at least be attested there in early form. On the other hand I notice that Biddle even seems to assume that the term meadow implies streamside. I think that the early Colonial period, several centuries earlier than this, the 1600s say, coincided with the development of something called a water meadow in England, which I understand to be an irrigated area (along a stream) deliberately kept in grass and used to raise fodder. I may easily be wrong in the streamside reading of prairie, as my reading in the matter is definitely not as extensive or attentive as yours, Alan, and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen this stated anywhere in so many words, though, on the other hand, I think it must have been tolerably clear for me to pick up on it! I don't recall my original context, sadly. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 23:08:43 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:08:43 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <00a601c3e5ea$c7599270$0db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Kaw /zaNje/ is 'upland forest' and the village /zaNjo:'liN/ is usually > given as 'they live in the forest'. Kaw /ttaNje/ is 'land like up on a > hill/ according to Mrs. Rowe. It's possible that either of these terms > might be extended, but the one with /z/ seems to refer to an area with > lots of trees. OP zaN'de 'grove' (in Dorsey). I tend to suspect that "upland" or "up on a hill" are intended as the opposite of "bottomland" or "lowland," and that in the context of this region along the Missouri and Mississippi these expressions refer to "along the major rivers, in their floodplains" (bottom lands) and "up on the bluffs and beyond on the flatlands up there" (upland areas). The uplands are typically fairly treeless, but not entirely so, and the bottomlands are often comparatively heavily covered with gallery forest. We have to assume that prairie in the proposed name refers to upland grasslands, I guess! Along the Missouri in Nebraska the lowland/upland contrast is pretty extreme. On the Nebraska side the bluffs are quite close to the river, enclosing pockets lowlands of various sizes. On the Iowa side the bluffs are off in the distance or out of sight and the ground is flat and there are lots of marshy areas. At the top of the bluffs there is a band of forest (not cottonwoods, but I don't know what) and then beyond there are more or less rolling grasslands (mostly in corn and millet now). I'm not a native, only an occasional visitor, and some of the locals on the list may wish to correct this slapdash assessment of their topography. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 23:19:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:19:04 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > In HoChunk: > > 'hoska / mooska' refer to an opening. It is sometimes glossed as prairie, > but I have the sense it refers more to a natural opening in a forest. Maybe a "glade"? Or you see "clearing" without any implication of "cleared land." In a way I've been assuming that the original sense of prairie was "an open area along a stream." > 'maNaNx' is a clear field. Implies a broader expanse that is totally clear. > Maybe this would be the more appropriate term for prairie. Both mooska and maNaNx have a certain resemblance to the Algonquian set Alan mentioned: > Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) > meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. I've always wondered about the Winnebago mo vs. maN contrast. This looks like a place where m and n before nasal vowels falls down. I'd wondered if moo was an orthographic variant of maNaN, but it sounds like this was too facile an assumption by far. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 29 05:42:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:42:11 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > JEK> I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a > somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. > > I did mention the thiNta/thiNtowaN 'Teton' use but missed the related > (?) Omaha term. I did search the Dorsey 1890 texts but found no > reference to prairie except in things like prairie chicken/hen. Same > for plains. I checked LaFlesche and found t.oN'-dse /htoN'ce/ 'the earth or ground; prairie without trees' and t.oN'-dse-gi /htoN'ceki/ 'of or pertaining to the prairie'. He also gives t.oN'-de 'ground' and t.oN'-de da-pa 'round hills' (rounded uplands?). The glossing here may owe something to OP, and the spelling with -de instead of -dse certainly owes something to OP phonology. On the other hand ta'ppa 'round' doesn't seem to occur in OP. UmoN'hon Iye gives toNde /ttoN'de/ 'earth, ground'. There are various compounds, none of which seem to me to suggest prairie. There isn't anything for 'prairie', but 'plain' lists moN snoNsnoN 'flat ground'. Dorsey's texts have tan'de (ke) /ttaN'de (khe)/ '(the) ground' (something you can tread on, dig, measure), ttaN'de a'dhitta=xc^i snaN'snaN=xc^i 'ground near by, very level', ttaN'de maNtha'=ta 'into the ground'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 29 05:56:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:56:59 -0700 Subject: Locative *-ki (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I checked LaFlesche and found t.oN'-dse /htoN'ce/ 'the earth or ground; > prairie without trees' and t.oN'-dse-gi /htoN'ceki/ 'of or pertaining to > the prairie'. The latter occurs as a modifier in t.oN-dse gi'wa-zhiN-ga 'birds of the prairie lands', presumably htaN'ce=ki waz^iN'ka. This seems to involve a postposition =ki that might match IO =gi 'in' (c^hi'naN=gi 'in the city') or Winnebago =(e)gi 'in'. There's nothing like this that I'm aware of in OP, unless maybe -gi in wakkaNdagi 'water monster; wonderful'. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 29 14:55:47 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:55:47 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: Personally, I've always distinguished 'prairie' from 'plains'. Prairie has more trees scattered about, plains fewer. This, in turn, relates to annual rainfall in large degree. And I assume lots of other factors like soil type, etc. are involved. The folks I'm corresponding with in Central KS are botanists however, and their primary interest is in the "tall grass prairie" found in that area. I sort of suspect they might have naming in mind or maybe some sort of newsletter article. I have one or two linguistic comments on the Hochunk and Hidatsa forms, but I'll get to them after classes today. Bob From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 29 15:00:48 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:00:48 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's the first portion of the OED entry for PRAIRIE, followed by MEADOW. It surpised me to see how late prairie entered English from Canadian French. (The ante 1682 quot. cites it as a French word, so 1773 is OED's earliest English example.) The 'great plain' sense of the word is definitely secondary (19c). A tract of level or undulating grass-land, without trees, and usually of great extent; applied chiefly to the grassy plains of North America; a savannah, a steppe. Also (U.S. local), a marsh, a swampy pond or lake. (In salt or soda prairie, extended to a level barren tract covered with an efflorescence of natron or soda, as in New Mexico, etc.; in trembling or shaking prairie, to quaking bog-land covered with thin herbage, in Louisiana.) [a1682 SIR T. BROWNE Tracts (1684) 201 The Prerie or large Sea-meadow upon the Coast of Provence.] 1773 P. KENNEDY Jrnl. in T. Hutchins Descr. Virginia, etc. (1778) 54 The Prairie, or meadow ground on the eastern side, is at least twenty miles wide. Ibid. 55 The lands are much the same as before described, only the Prairies (Meadows) extend further from the river. 1787 J. HARMAR in E. Denny Milit. Jrnl. (1860) 423 The prairies are very extensive, natural meadows, covered with long grass,..like the ocean, as far as the eye can see, the view is terminated by the horizon. 1791 D. BRADLEY Jrnl. 19 Sept. (1935) 17 A prairia of two or three hundred acres where the grass or wild oats is 8 or 10 feet high and very thick. Ibid. 12 Oct. 22 Struck a large prairia in our coursefound it impassable. 1794 W. CLARK Jrnl. 1 Aug. in Mississippi Valley Hist. Rev. (1914) I. 421 An open..Pararie..handsomly interspersed with Small Copse of Trees. 1795 J. SMITH in Ohio Archaeol. & Hist. Q. (1907) XVI. 380 We saw several pararas, as they are called. They are large tracts of fine, rich land, without trees and producing as fine grass as the best meadows. 1805 PIKE Sources Mississ. (1810) 7 Four hundred yards in the rear, there is a small prairie of 8 or 10 acres, which would be a convenient spot for gardens. 1806 New Eng. Republican in Massachusetts Spy 16 July 1/5 A venerable Philosopher sitting in the middle of an immense Map, marked with vast praires, huge rivers, and mountains of salt. 1809 A. HENRY Trav. 264 The Plains, or, as the French denominate them, the Prairies, or Meadows, compose an extensive tract of country. 1815 SOUTHEY in Q. Rev. XII. 326 A large Oak tree stands alone in a prairie... (Note. If this word be merely a French synonime for savannah, which has long been naturalized, the Americans display little taste in preferring it.) 1819 E. DANA Geogr. Sk. Western Country 37 The ore is dug from an open praira. Ibid. 108 There are two kinds of praira, the river and upland. 1834 D. CROCKETT Narr. Life xii. 85, I came to the edge of an open parara, and looking on before my dogs, I saw in and about the biggest bear that ever was seen in America. c1834 H. EVANS in Chron. Oklahoma (1925) III. 181 We could look and behold..one continual large expanse of Pararie. And the definitions of MEADOW: 1. a. A piece of land permanently covered with grass to be mown for use as hay; (gen.) a grassy field or other area of grassland, esp. one used for pasture. Also (regional): a tract of low well-watered ground, esp. near a river (cf. WATER-MEADOW n.). b. Land used as a meadow or meadows. c. Hay mown from a meadow. 2. Chiefly N. Amer. A tract of uncultivated grassland, esp. a low-level one along a river or in a marshy region near the sea; (also) a tract of uncultivated upland pasture. 3. a. N. Amer. (chiefly Newfoundland). An area of sea ice on which seals haul out in large numbers. b. An area of sea rich in seaweed or small marine organisms, esp. providing a feeding ground for whales or fish. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 29 16:10:45 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:10:45 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who helped--with negative evidence--on the etym. of HOPPAS. One possibility is that the word is from Eng. 'hopper', a basket or other container carried on the back and used to hold seed for sowing, et al. R-dropping explains the lack of -r, but how to explain the -s (unless it was orig. the pl. marker)? Alan From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 29 16:31:59 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:31:59 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Please excuse the continued non-Siouan digression, but I just--what are the odds?--ran across the word in T. Procter's Diary (1791) in Amer. State Papers vol. IV (Indian Affairs vol. I) (1832) p. 151 "You are just now rising from your seats, with your backs bent, bearing your loaded hoppas." The Iroquois speaker here (in translation) is apparently using the word in the plural, so it might indeed be an r-less 'hopper'. (This antedates the earliest example (Lewis and Clark) in Mathews' Dict. of Americanisms by 12 years.) Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 29 17:22:57 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:22:57 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: I'm coming into the prairie discussion a little late, but I thought of one more possibility that I don't think has been raised. In Fletcher and La Flesche, "The Omaha Tribe", the name for the village around modern Omaha and Bellevue that the tribe lived in from 1847-1856 is described. The gloss given is "the hill rising in the center of a plain". In Omaha, it is given as: pahu'dhoNdadhoN At the end of my first year in Mark's Omaha class, one of the other students and I were having a little trouble making sense of this. The first part is certainly "hill", and the last syllable is surely the positional dhoN, which is used for village establishments. What comes between ought to convey the "rising in the center of a plain" concept. ppahe-u-dhoNda-dhoN (I think it's ppa'he, not pha'he. Correct, John?) hill-in-plain(?)-GLOB Generally u- works in the opposite direction from English 'in'. It is usually prefixed to a verb, and implies that the verb's action takes place in, into, or in the context of, the preceding noun complement. That might suggest something happening in the hill, which contradicts the gloss. Otherwise, we have to see ppa'he, 'hill', as being the head of the NP, with the complement of u- not explicitly stated. That would mean udhoNda == 'in the center of a plain', or perhaps just 'in a plain'. Unless nouns can ever be prefixed by u-, I think we would have to understand dhoNda as a stative verb describing a type of land as 'flat', 'level', 'treeless', 'tall-grassy' or whatever. Perhaps the Dhegihans referred to plains or prairies using stative verbs, rather than nouns? Or perhaps udhoNda simply means 'towering over the surroundings'? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 29 20:27:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:27:42 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > ppahe-u-dhoNda-dhoN (I think it's ppa'he, not pha'he. > Correct, John?) Yes. Not sure about the accent. I'd have to look into udhaNda. It looks a bit unusual in form. Note that the positional articles have corresponding verbal forms with locatives u and a, though I think dhaN usually comes out naN in that context: the ithe=...dhe dhaN inoN=...dhe khe ihe=...dhe (The i here is probably not a locative, however.) I wonder if the form isn't something like ppah(e) udhaN=di-a-dhaN, but my understanding of linking -a- doesn't explain it here. Before =di, yes; after, no. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 29 20:58:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:58:18 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Following up on what John said, I'd hazard that Hocangara /mooska/ is pretty clearly a borrowing from a neighboring Algonquian language. The term /maaNx/ is interesting because the related term in the majority of the more westerly Siouan languages is the term for 'sky' or 'upper world'. It's still a clear expanse, but up there rather than down to earth. So if the two terms are as related as they look, they're nice examples of semantic change. And, sorry, the comment I thought I had on the Hidatsa form isn't. I had misread it. Bob From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 21:20:20 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:20:20 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: >The term /maaNx/ is interesting because the related term in the majority >of the more westerly Siouan languages is the term for 'sky' or 'upper >world'. It's still a clear expanse, but up there rather than down to >earth. So if the two terms are as related as they look, they're nice >examples of semantic change. I won't hazard a guess on if they are related, but the HoChunk word for 'sky, cloud' is /maNaNxi/. Would be interesting if these are related in some way. Hen _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 29 22:16:57 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:16:57 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: John wrote: > Note that the positional articles have > corresponding verbal forms with locatives u and a, though I think dhaN > usually comes out naN in that context: > > the ithe=...dhe > dhaN inoN=...dhe I'm almost sure that Dorsey uses idhaN'dhe for this. No examples off the top of my head, though. There do seem to be some differences between Dorsey (Ponka?) and modern Omaha in pronunciation of dh / n around a nasal vowel. In Dorsey, 'on the other side' is masa'ni, while our speakers insist on ma(N)saN'dhiN. > 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? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 29 22:31:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:31:49 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > I won't hazard a guess on if they are related, but the HoChunk word for > 'sky, cloud' is > /maNaNxi/. Would be interesting if these are related in some way. Hmmm, that *is* interesting. The Kaw, etc. word is maaNxe 'sky, upper world' (upper world having a religious reference). By the usual sound changes this would come out maaNx in HC, since HC usually loses final, unaccented /-e/ after a single consonant. So far, so good. But maaNxi, with its different final vowel, would remain as it is in HC, and there is no obvious cognate term in Dhegiha dialects with the /-i/ that I know of. So it's still hard to decide if the two words are indeed related. 'Cloud' in Dhegiha dialects is *maNxpü. The umlauted u unrounds to [i] in Omaha, Ponca and Quapaw. So it's a compound of maaNx(e/i?) and the latter part. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 01:07:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:07:08 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCD@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Following up on what John said, I'd hazard that Hocangara /mooska/ is > pretty clearly a borrowing from a neighboring Algonquian language. It works a bit differently from 'bow', where the -kw appears as -gu. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Jan 30 01:35:13 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:35:13 -0500 Subject: Word for 'prairie' In-Reply-To: <00ca01c3e678$01998c50$0db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: 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. It should be noted (or not :-) that the Kankakee area, except for a long the edge of the river itself, was almost treeless (there were exceptions--timbered moraines here and there and the occasional windblown "mound" of sand covered in oaks). Michael On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Personally, I've always distinguished 'prairie' from 'plains'. Prairie has more > trees scattered about, plains fewer. This, in turn, relates to annual rainfall > in large degree. And I assume lots of other factors like soil type, etc. are > involved. The folks I'm corresponding with in Central KS are botanists however, > and their primary interest is in the "tall grass prairie" found in that area. I > sort of suspect they might have naming in mind or maybe some sort of newsletter > article. > > I have one or two linguistic comments on the Hochunk and Hidatsa forms, but I'll > get to them after classes today. > > Bob > > > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 30 01:53:00 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:53:00 -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 OED says, PLAIN n1.: 1. a. A tract of country of which the general surface is comparatively flat; an extent of level ground or flat meadow land; applied spec. (in proper or quasi-proper names) to certain extensive tracts of this character; e.g. Salisbury Plain, the Great Plain of England, etc. In pl. spec. the river valleys of N. India." (first 1297) b. Chiefly pl. In Colonial and U.S. use applied to level treeless tracts of country; prairie. (first 1779) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 14:56:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:56:23 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > >The term /maaNx/ is interesting because the related term in the majority > >of the more westerly Siouan languages is the term for 'sky' or 'upper > >world'. It's still a clear expanse, but up there rather than down to > >earth. So if the two terms are as related as they look, they're nice > >examples of semantic change. > > I won't hazard a guess on if they are related, but the HoChunk word for > 'sky, cloud' is /maNaNxi/. Would be interesting if these are related in > some way. Actually, the CSD does have a small 'field' set including the Winnebago form - Dakotan ma(N)'gha 'field, cultivated area', ma(N)'ghahu 'cornstalk', IO maN'aNxe 'cornfield', Wi maN'aNx 'field, tract, garden'. This doesn't sem to have a Dhegiha cognate, maybe because any comparable form would conflict with maN'(aN)ghe 'sky, upper world'. Dhegiha has forms based on *owe for 'field'. Dorsey always gives the OP form as u?e, which I took to be from *o-K?e 'in which to dig or hoe', but I see that even Quapaw and Osage, which would retain k?, seem to have -we. IO, which would also have k? from *k? also has uwe' 'field, rows of plants'. It would be extremely interesting metaphor, if 'field' and 'upper world' had any connection. Like Henning I'm not sure I would hazard such a connection, but there is at least one story motif in which women digging in the upper world discover the earth through a hole they make in the upper world. I believe they are usually digging for roots, but hoeing might do as well. It would at least support a pun or two. In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound *maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. If moo'ska is a loan froma model like > a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox > mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. (I assume these are the underpinnings of Mascoutin?) then we also have to explain what happened to the -te(:wi). For example, can this initial occur without that additional material or might the initial be borrowed as an independent form? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 15:10:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:10:00 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm almost sure that Dorsey uses idhaN'dhe for this. No examples off the > top of my head, though. I'm misremembering. You're right, idhaN'=...dhe: JOD 1890:36.6 kku'saNde=xti idhaN'=dha=i 'he put it (an arrow) right through (himself)' The inaN=...dhe occurs in LaFlesche: 77a i-noN-the 'to put upon the ground' (also 'dispersed the clouds'!), but then 80a i-thoN-the 'to put something away that is round'. Even Kaw has iyaN=...ye. > > 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? I'll try to take this up later! From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 30 15:22:05 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:22:05 -0800 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > If moo'ska is a loan from a model like >> a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, >> Ojibway mas^kode. > (I assume these are the underpinnings of Mascoutin?) Yes, according to HNAI 15: 672, it means 'people of the small prairies'. It's related to */e$kwete:wi/ 'fire'. > then we also have to explain what happened to the -te(:wi). For example, can > this initial occur without that additional material or might the initial be > borrowed as an independent form? No on the first, and I doubt the second. The shortest form of the word you'd find would be Ojibwe /mashkode/. But it wouldn't really bother *me* to say that when the Hochunks borrowed this word they only borrowed the first two syllables. Dave From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 15:23:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:23:01 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > ppahe-u-dhoNda-dhoN (I think it's ppa'he, not pha'he. > > Correct, John?) > > Yes. Not sure about the accent. I'd have to look into udhaNda. The texts have udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 90:436.8), udhaN'da 'middle of the tribal circle' (JOD 90:601.17), niN'udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 91:39.2). I haven't detected any other uses of the root dhaNda. There is naN'de 'side of the lodge', which ablauts with postpositions: naN'da=tta 'at the side of the lodge, by the wall'. I doubt that could be connected. I guess this is 'the island hill'. Dorsey gives mostly ppahe', but twice ppa'he, for 'hill'. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 16:11:55 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:11:55 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > Actually, the CSD does have a small 'field' set including the Winnebago form - Dakotan ma(N)'gha 'field, cultivated area', ma(N)'ghahu 'cornstalk', IO maN'aNxe 'cornfield', Wi maN'aNx 'field, tract, garden'. Good point. I'd forgotten about that entirely. > This doesn't sem to have a Dhegiha cognate, maybe because any comparable form would conflict with maN'(aN)ghe 'sky, upper world'. In Dhegiha the stems with final -i often fall together with those having -e. So it's entirely possible that maaNxi/e fell together. Winnebago is very good at keeping them separate. > while a loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound *maNaN-ska 'white earth'. I'm not inclined to buy into that one. It's true that throughout Dhegiha there is a tendency for /aN/ after an /m/ to be pronounced [oN] or simply [o], but I've never seen this extended to Hochunk at all. HC seems to be very good about keeping it's /aN/'s in the [a] range. It would make a good folk etymology, but I think it's much more realistic to assume that [maaskw-] simply transferred its rounding from /kw/ to the preceding /a/ in the borrowing process. I have nothing to offer for the rhyming hooska though. Bob From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 17:03:34 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:03:34 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: >In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a >loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound >*maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - >perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be >expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases >I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For >forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', >moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent >initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I >wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. moowe 'to walk, follow a path' maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' mooci 'cellar, den' maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' mooska 'clearing or field' maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to tell me. they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the bank of a lake or any water body. moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even then they would rather say maNaN haja. Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I was with didn't like that analyses. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ High-speed users�be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 17:13:59 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:13:59 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: I forgot some info. While hoska refers to a clearing, it is also used to refer to an opening in the clouds, or anything where an opening is letting light in. Mooska refers specifically to a clearing on the ground, either a small clearing in the woods or a large prairie. Mooska is often used to talk about thwe western plains, especially by elders talking about the removal periods. So maNaN + hoska makes sense in this context. Henning _________________________________________________________________ Find high-speed �net deals � comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 30 18:53:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:53:13 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Quick tyro question-- Is the leading ho- on (almost) every second word of the list below the Hochunk equivalent of the MVS locative prefix *o-, OP u-, 'in'? Thanks, Rory "Henning Garvin" cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/30/2004 11:03 AM Please respond to siouan >In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a >loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound >*maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - >perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be >expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases >I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For >forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', >moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent >initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I >wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. moowe 'to walk, follow a path' maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' mooci 'cellar, den' maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' mooska 'clearing or field' maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to tell me. they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the bank of a lake or any water body. moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even then they would rather say maNaN haja. Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I was with didn't like that analyses. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 30 19:25:44 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:25:44 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: John wrote: > The texts have udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 90:436.8), udhaN'da 'middle of the > tribal circle' (JOD 90:601.17), niN'udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 91:39.2). I > haven't detected any other uses of the root dhaNda. [...] > > I guess this is 'the island hill'. Yes, I'm sure that's right. I looked up 'island' in the Stabler/Swetland dictionary and came up with niu thoNta (i.e., ni-udhoNda) I'm guessing that the -da is an old positional or nominalizer that occurs in conjunction with the leading u-: u-dhaN-da IN_CONTEXT-GLOB-THING which probably means a (globular) eminence standing out upon an otherwise level surface. That would nicely explain both the 'island' and the 'hill arising from the center of a plain' interpretations. The 'middle of the tribal circle' reference is to the Orphan story, I think when he is exalting himself. Perhaps that usage applies as much to his position of prominence as to his centrality in the tribal circle. At any rate, I guess it has nothing to do with 'plain' or 'prairie'. Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 30 19:52:51 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:52:51 -0600 Subject: hoppas etymology Message-ID: Ives Goddard has answered my question: hoppas is from Unami Delaware ha'pi:s 'tump-line', the strap around the forehead or upper chest that bears some or all of the weight of a backpack. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 20:08:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:08:34 -0700 Subject: Epenthetic Initials (RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Quick tyro question-- Is the leading ho- on (almost) every second word > of the list below the Hochunk equivalent of the MVS locative prefix *o-, > OP u-, 'in'? Yes. Winnebago has an epenthetic h on vowel-initial words, with certain exceptions, e.g., not on bare stem initial of verbs inflected as ?-stems, and I think also not on monosyllables of the form V(V). To some extent the first class is the set of verbs of the form of the second class. The usual logic of Winnebago grammars is to treat the h as organic and delete it when some other element precedes, but I don't know if this is the linguists talking or the speakers they worked with. With Winnebago, the linguists and the speakers are fairly commonly one and the same, of course. For an interesting comparison, with Dakota it's Boas & Deloria (Deloria speaking?) who particularly insist on initial epenthetic ? with vowel-initial forms. I believe it was also specifically Deloria who draws attention to final -? (< -?e (?)) as a declarative. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 20:23:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:23:34 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' ... > mooska 'clearing or field' > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' > > I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to tell > me. Great work, Henning! This explains the vowels and the accent, and it's really nice that the folks you are working with can recover the underlying forms here. It sounds like hoska must be based on ska in the sense of clearness or lightedness. And the progression with mooska is a lot like that with prairie in English. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 18:11:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:11:29 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: There is the intervening /c/ in 'bow'. Maybe a relative chronology problem too. We have borrowed words two or three times from the same source at different periods with different phonological results. Examples like "cap", "chief" and "chef" come to mind. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:07 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Following up on what John said, I'd hazard that Hocangara /mooska/ is > pretty clearly a borrowing from a neighboring Algonquian language. It works a bit differently from 'bow', where the -kw appears as -gu. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 23:04:08 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:04:08 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > moowe > mooci > mooraje > moos^?ok > mooska So are the above actually occurring contractions of maaN- followed by a morpheme beginning with (h)o-? Or are they forms you constructed to try out with speakers? I still suspect a loan here, but it could maybe be maaN+(h)o+ska if you use John's analysis. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 23:06:51 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:06:51 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Yes, and the leading h- is epenthetic, occurring only in WI/HC with these initial forms. It's probably that, if we are seeing contracted forms with the moo- words, contraction took place before epenthesis, since that postdates the break with Chiwere. So you wouldn't have to account for the /h/. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:53 PM Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. > > > > > Quick tyro question-- Is the leading ho- on (almost) every > second word of the list below the Hochunk equivalent of > the MVS locative prefix *o-, OP u-, 'in'? > > Thanks, > Rory > > > > > > "Henning Garvin" > m> cc: > Sent by: Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. > owner-siouan at lists.c > olorado.edu > > > 01/30/2004 11:03 AM > Please respond to > siouan > > > > > > > >In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a > >loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound > >*maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - > >perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be > >expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases > >I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For > >forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', > >moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent > >initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I > >wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. > > > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' > > mooci 'cellar, den' > > maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' > > mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' > > maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' > > moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' > > maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' > > mooska 'clearing or field' > > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' > > I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to > tell > me. > > they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the > bank of a lake or any water body. > > moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean > > travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even > then they would rather say maNaN haja. > Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but > more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break > this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was > thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I > > was with didn't like that analyses. > > > > > Henning Garvin > Linguistic research > Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division > > _________________________________________________________________ > High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet > > Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 00:43:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:43:24 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: <002201c3e785$d1a34270$2bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Yes, and the leading h- is epenthetic, occurring only in WI/HC with these > initial forms. It's probably that, if we are seeing contracted forms with the > moo- words, contraction took place before epenthesis, since that postdates the > break with Chiwere. So you wouldn't have to account for the /h/. The epenthetic h's always disappear when something precedes them. Winnebago grammar apparently knows that this h is present only in initial contexts. As I recall both Lipkind and Marten comment on this. I don't remember Sussman or the sketch part of Marino well enough to remember if they also note the behavior. The examples of alternation that I remember from inflectional and derivational prefix morphology might be suspect of being inherited, but there are lots of examples with the locatives involving compounding in Miner and elsewhere, not to mention behavior with things like the indefinite article, and I suspect this alternation is simply best seen as productive. It's interesting that the speakers that Henning was working with were able to recover most of the fairly obscure (to me) moo < maNaN + (h)o examples, apparently quite easily, even though I think some could fairly be characterized as lexicalized. The examples I cited were all from Miner. Miner had a few more I didn't mention. I regret that potential loanword, too, alas, though I would have been happier with something more along the lines of (non-occurring) *mooskac^. From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 00:54:37 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:54:37 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > >So are the above actually occurring contractions of maaN- followed by a >morpheme >beginning with (h)o-? Or are they forms you constructed to try out with >speakers? These are all occurring contractions. I just had a hunch about the bear clan name, and then found these other examples. _________________________________________________________________ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 01:03:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:03:22 -0700 Subject: Epenthetic Initials and Problematic Initial h- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Yes. Winnebago has an epenthetic h on vowel-initial words, with certain > exceptions, ... One interesting postscript to epenthetic h is that the h with the first persons A1 ha, P1 hiN, A12 hiN, which behaves in Winnebago like one of the epenthetic h's, is also found in IO, which doesn't have epenthetic h otherwise. So these pronouns have h- in IO, but the locatives, etc., don't. In Dhegiha there is no h on these pronouns either, cf. OP A1 a, P1 aN (P1+dative = iN), A12 aN (A12+dative = iN). It's hard to tell if the h here is a reflex of *w in IO (and Wi?) or some sort of incipient epenthesis, though the former seems more plausible to me at the moment. The other more or less problematic h- in Siouan is the one that appears in 'day' in Wi, IO, and Dhegiha-less-OP, but is missing in OP and Dakotan. If I recall, this set is Wi haNaNp, IO haNaNwe (least sure of this one!), Os haN'pa, OP aN'ba, Da aNpA. The Da A ablauts, and is e before, e.g., =tu, as in aNpe'=tu. There's a similar h- in the indefinite/interrogative pronoun base *(h)a- where it occurs, e.g., OP anaN 'how many' vs. Os hanaN. I think there are traces of this ha- in Wi as well. The 'day' set is Chafe's example of PMS *rh (or was it *hr?), from the naN- prefix on 'day' in Southeastern and no doubt Iroquoian data I have forgotten. I'm not sure if that explains the h ~ nil alternation or not. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 05:22:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:22:17 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In support of the productivity of these forms: maNaN' in Miner On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' moo'we and howe' both in Miner Further afield, -we is cognate with Dhegiha *-phe, OP -he, as in z^ohe 'to wade', uhe 'to follow'. > mooci 'cellar, den' > maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' moo'c^i in Miner; hoc^i' in Lipkind > mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' > maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' horaj^e' in Miner > moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' > maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' moo's^?ok in Miner; and hos^?o'k 'hill' is, too > mooska 'clearing or field' > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' moo'sga and hosga' in Miner Miner writes sg for sk on principle. Under hosga' 'be open, clear (land)' he includes hosga'ij^a 'prairie'. Marino (p. 317) gives mosga 'prairie' > they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the > bank of a lake or any water body. Miner lists moo'ga. He doesn't have hoga', but IO has 'uka, ukaN' 'cliff, bank', which implies PWC *oka', the necessary underpinning for maNaN + *(h)oga', even though hoga' isn't attested anywhere as far as I know. Perhaps the word has fallen out of use entirely, or perhaps no one has stumbled on a speaker who recalls it. > moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean > travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even > then they would rather say maNaN haja. > > Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but > more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break > this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was > thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I > was with didn't like that analyses. Miner has moo'haj^a' and, of course, haj^a' 'to see'. He doesn't have any hypothetical hohaj^a'. There is maNaNha' 'mud' and j^aa 'frozen'. Moo'haj^a might be a rendition of maNaNha'j^a 'frozen mud' somewhat along the lines Henning suggests. Hypothetical moo'j^a from maNaN + hypothetical (h)oj^a makes more sense to me, too, though the form hoj^a isn't attested in Miner and we still haven't handled the -ha- in the middle. Miner also lists moo'kahi 'every year' and explains it as maNaN + hokahi 'every' under the latter. moosiN'niN Mosinee, WI hosiNniN' is 'be cold' (cf. OP usniN') Marino (p. 317) lists additional mo(o)- forms: modja' (mooj^a) 'something that grows in the ground', cf. ??? mogi'eje 'to scatter', mokie 'scattered', cf. gi?e 'scatter', horu?e' 'to sow', hoi?e' 'sow, scatter seeds' mopase 'bluff', cf. hopase' 'corner (in town)' moro 'shore', cf. ??? mowaxu 'pour on the ground', cf. howaxu' 'pour into' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 05:53:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:53:51 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > The texts have udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 90:436.8), udhaN'da 'middle of the > > tribal circle' (JOD 90:601.17), niN'udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 91:39.2). I > > haven't detected any other uses of the root dhaNda. [...] > > Yes, I'm sure that's right. I looked up 'island' in the > Stabler/Swetland dictionary and came up with > > niu thoNta (i.e., ni-udhoNda) This is the Dhegiha 'island' set, it turns out. Os odhaNta 'center', niNo'dhaNta 'island' LaFlesche refers from the latter to niN'pase which he glosses 'land out of water'. Rankin lists (from Dorsey) Ks niba'se 'island in the regular channel' vs. ni(N)' oga'giye' ~ j^o'gagi'ye (j^e 'lake') 'island in an oxbow'. Qu ni(N)' doNtta', ni(N)' naNtta' 'island' The general form (where something else doesn't replace it) is *niN' + odhoNta, where the latter seems to be '(be) in the center'. The rest of Central Siouan seems to have *wit- 'island', with various noun-forming suffixes, e.g., Da wi'ta, IO j^eromiNj^e (j^e 'lake'), Ma wit-ka. > I'm guessing that the -da is an old positional or > nominalizer that occurs in conjunction with the > leading u-: > > u-dhaN-da > IN_CONTEXT-GLOB-THING > > which probably means a (globular) eminence standing out > upon an otherwise level surface. The more general sense of 'be round-shaped and located' isn't attested for udhaN, but various derivates are: udhaN' 'to hold, to take hold' ugdhaN' 'to put in; in between' I agree that -da is probably a postposition. Compare dha'tta 'left (handed)', Dha'tta(=)da 'Left Hand Side Clan', maybe originally 'to the left'. The -da form is cognate with Winnebago's locative (e=)j^a, Dakota =ta. The latter appears as e=k-ta with e=, and that form -k-ta accounts for the more common Dhegiha form =tta 'to(ward)' (*kt > tt). JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Jan 31 18:35:37 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:35:37 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: John wrote: > The more general sense of 'be round-shaped and located' isn't attested for > udhaN, but various derivates are: > > udhaN' 'to hold, to take hold' > ugdhaN' 'to put in; in between' Yes, and in fact that's where our speaker took it when I asked her about udhaNda. She recognized this as a word, but had a little trouble at first remembering the meaning. Then she came up with the meaning of 'hold on tightly, for dear life'. The next day, Mark and I pursued this a little further with her, and we got: udhaN' 'to hold' udhaN'aNda 'to hold on tightly, for dear life' udhaN'dhaNda 'to keep holding on for dear life' (A1 - ubdhaN'dhaNda) udhaN'dhaN ga! 'Keep holding on!' 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? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 31 19:02:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:02:48 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Note though that the semantics of the compounds is quite transparent except in the case of mooska 'plains, prairie', which makes the sudden jump from earth+in-white(spot) to 'plains'. It's at that point that I'd look for the influence of maaskwa, precisely 'plains, prairie'. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:22 PM Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. > In support of the productivity of these forms: > > maNaN' in Miner > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' > > moo'we and howe' both in Miner > > Further afield, -we is cognate with Dhegiha *-phe, OP -he, as in z^ohe 'to > wade', uhe 'to follow'. > > > mooci 'cellar, den' > > maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' > > moo'c^i in Miner; hoc^i' in Lipkind > > > mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' > > maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' > > horaj^e' in Miner > > > moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' > > maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' > > moo's^?ok in Miner; and hos^?o'k 'hill' is, too > > > mooska 'clearing or field' > > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' > > moo'sga and hosga' in Miner > > Miner writes sg for sk on principle. > > Under hosga' 'be open, clear (land)' he includes hosga'ij^a 'prairie'. > Marino (p. 317) gives mosga 'prairie' > > > they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the > > bank of a lake or any water body. > > Miner lists moo'ga. He doesn't have hoga', but IO has 'uka, ukaN' 'cliff, > bank', which implies PWC *oka', the necessary underpinning for maNaN + > *(h)oga', even though hoga' isn't attested anywhere as far as I know. > Perhaps the word has fallen out of use entirely, or perhaps no one has > stumbled on a speaker who recalls it. > > > moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean > > travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even > > then they would rather say maNaN haja. > > > > Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but > > more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break > > this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was > > thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I > > was with didn't like that analyses. > > Miner has moo'haj^a' and, of course, haj^a' 'to see'. He doesn't have any > hypothetical hohaj^a'. There is maNaNha' 'mud' and j^aa 'frozen'. > Moo'haj^a might be a rendition of maNaNha'j^a 'frozen mud' somewhat along > the lines Henning suggests. Hypothetical moo'j^a from maNaN + > hypothetical (h)oj^a makes more sense to me, too, though the form hoj^a > isn't attested in Miner and we still haven't handled the -ha- in the > middle. > > Miner also lists > > moo'kahi 'every year' and explains it as maNaN + hokahi 'every' under the > latter. > > moosiN'niN Mosinee, WI hosiNniN' is 'be cold' (cf. OP usniN') > > Marino (p. 317) lists additional mo(o)- forms: > > modja' (mooj^a) 'something that grows in the ground', cf. ??? > mogi'eje 'to scatter', mokie 'scattered', cf. gi?e 'scatter', horu?e' 'to > sow', hoi?e' 'sow, scatter seeds' > mopase 'bluff', cf. hopase' 'corner (in town)' > moro 'shore', cf. ??? > mowaxu 'pour on the ground', cf. howaxu' 'pour into' > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 31 18:57:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:57:06 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > It's interesting that the speakers that Henning was working with were able > to recover most of the fairly obscure (to me) moo < maNaN + (h)o examples, > apparently quite easily, even though I think some could fairly be > characterized as lexicalized. Yeah, I had never heard of any instance of HoChaNk losing vowel nasalization. It's quite common, especially for /oN/ in Kaw. But I suppose it makes sense with the very common V1+V2 --> V2 Siouan phonological process. Although the source of hooska 'clearing' deserves a little more study, the analysis as 'white (spot) in it' makes pretty good sense. I still have a serious semantics problem with mooska then meaning 'plains, prairie' though. It would make sense if it meant 'clearing' or 'white spot of ground' or the like, but it only really makes sense as 'plains, prairie' with Algonquian influence. If we're not dealing with an outright loanword that has been folk etymologized, I'm convinced we're dealing at least with what's called a "loan blend". I think it's Algonquian that is providing the extended semantics here. Or maybe not. Anyway, it's all part of the sport of linguistics. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 03:49:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:49:11 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > A question this immediately raises, is whether examples in texts or other > data suggest that the range of uses of wic^ha has been expanding > historically at the expense of wa? Is thi'wic^hakte - as a particular > example of wic^ha use - replacing thi'wakte in nominalizations or > indefinite object cases? If so, we'd probably expect wa in older examples > where today we find wic^ha. A litle checking in the Siouan Archives encodings of the Deloria and Bushotter texts suggests that thi'kte 'murder' and thi'wic^hakte 'murderer; he commits murder' are the forms there. However, I have also found wakte-agli '(ones who) having killed return', apparently referring to men who have returned successfully from a war expedition, and waktoglapi 'they relate their (war) deeds (i.e., their killings)'. These terms are also cited in Buechel, I see, and Buechel lists wakte' 'to kill, to have killed or scalped; to triumph', which seems to be the base term. Perhaps this is a more specialized term than wic^hakte in wic^haktepi 'killing', etc., and so perhaps an older usage. These are far from a complete analysis of wa vs. wic^ha for animate/human (indefinite) patients, and it is rather presumptious of me to try to serialize the examples on the basis of it, but it looks to me like there is at least some potential for wic^ha and wa to alternate in animate/human references, though Regina's and Violet's assessments clearly favor wic^ha as the productive formation. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 04:43:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:43:24 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <20031222231543.67569.qmail@web40003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > The form wawokiya 'to help people with something' in > my previous post, however, remains a grain in the > ointment. My speaker feels that in this case, wa- > indeed expresses the notion of 'people in general'. I wonder if it might not be reasonable to consider wa in this case (and also the waphata 'to butcher' case) as "especially general" or "especially indefinite" animates, perhaps sanctioned by lexicalization at a stage in which wic^ha was primarily inflectional? Do these forms admit use of wic^ha as well, perhaps with some contrast in meaning? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 04:50:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:50:52 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > in the spot, ... Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized for their "indefinite object" form or forms? JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 05:53:39 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:53:39 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: As I start to write my thesis, beginning with an overview of Omaha history, a miscellany of questions has been occurring to me, some relevant and some not. I thought I would post some of these to the list, to find out what is known about them. 1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? 2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ possibly come from something like MVS *mni-s^ot(i)a, if we can preserve the m in *mni and shift the sibilants forward a slot, as happens in IO. Is this a likely etymology, or completely off the mark? 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three different contexts. We have the Maha as the UmaN'haN, or the Omaha tribe, which is said to mean 'upstream'. But we also have the Pani-maha, who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha or Arikara as well. And between the Kansas and Platte rivers, we have a couple of small rivers flowing into the Missouri from southeastern Nebraska called Nemaha, presumably Ni-maha. So are these maha's coming from the Missouria, Osage or Kaws, with the meaning of 'upstream' on the Missouri? The Nemaha is the 'river upstream', the Pani-maha are the 'upstream Pawnees', and the O-maha are the 'ones who dwell in an upstream context'? 4. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Big Sioux River is known to the French as the River of the Mahas, apparently because the Omaha-Ponka were dwelling there in the late 17th century. Tabeau, probably writing around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a "rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says this is probably the Des Moines, but the river seems always to be mentioned in the context of the Minnesota, the James and the Upper Missouri, which suggests the Big Sioux. To Tabeau, the river of the Mahas seems appropriately to be Omaha Creek in northeastern Nebraska, where the Omaha Big Village is located, but this is barely mentioned only in passing. Could mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old (river of the) Maha? In French, it would be pronounced something like /mohaN/, which is at least as close to /umaN'haN/ as is /maha/. 5. How long have the Iowa and Oto been separate tribes? As I understand, the two languages are hardly more than dialects of each other. Some Omaha traditions seem to hold that they were together with both of them, and the Winnebago as well, when they were living on the Big Sioux. When the Omaha moved west to the mouth of the White River on the Missouri, the Iowa and Oto were still with them, though the Winnebago were no longer heard from. After moving back down the Missouri to northeastern Nebraska, the Iowa were still near the Omaha, living at Aowa Creek while the Omaha were at Bow Creek. But the Oto were already living down by Omaha (city) and the lower Platte by 1718 (according to a French map), and joined with the Pawnee in the massacre of the Villasur expedition in 1720. The Iowa moved down to join the Oto on the other side of the Missouri at Council Bluffs sometime prior to 1758, when the French Governor Kerlerec described the tribes of the Missouri. They later moved east to the mouth of the Des Moines between 1765 and 1768 at the invitation of the traders of St. Louis to meet them there. How does this all compare to the Iowa and Oto traditions of their early history? And how about the Winnebago? Is there any reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi prior to 1700? 6. Do we have any language material at all from the Missouria? 7. It looks like we have at least two words for 'horse' in MVS. In the Lower Missouri region, we have /kawa/, from Spanish 'caballo', shared by the Osage, Kaw and I understand the Pawnee. From further up, especially perhaps the northeastern Nebraska region, we have 'horse' derived from the 'dog' term, *s^uN'ka. In Omaha, Ponka, Iowa and Oto, the word completely shifts. In OP, a new word, s^iN'nudoN, is coined for 'dog'. What do Iowa and Oto have for 'dog'? In Lakhota, the new form for 'horse' is the qualified 'dog', s^uN'ka-wakhaN'. Is it the same in all the Dakotan languages? And what is the word for 'horse' in Winnebago? That's enough for tonight. Happy New Year, everyone! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 06:10:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:10:19 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At the moment I'm inclined to see wa prefixes in verbs as indefinite (or, really, non-specific) patients, and in some languages as third person plural object inflections (in OP not 3p subject inflections, even in statives). In nominalizations I think they play the same role(s), and are not subject references unless the subject is encoded as a patient. I'm arguing this in terms of Omaha-Ponca, but I think that similar arguments apply in other Siouan languages, modulo the wa vs. wic^ha complexity in Dakotan. I'll take advantage of Rory's examples to play the devil's advocate, as I think his analysis of wa as the subject marker in nominalizations is essentially different, and requires that wa in nominalizations be regarded as having a different pattern of functioning than wa in unnominalized verbs. Again, I have not yet done any examination of standard grammars to verify this, but I think his approach is not without its advocates. In essence in his analysis wa is the reference to the head of the nominalization, or it might be considered to be just the mark of nominalization, since it doesn't contrast with another marker of nominalization. Rory already draws the necessary distinctions, so I'm just running through his arguments in reverse, so to speak. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John are discussing has > perplexed me too, particularly in parsing names for tools and other > technical terms. In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might > refer to the subject as well as to objects. What I had in mind was this > apparent use of wa- as a nominalizer: > > wa-sabe = 'the one that is black' > wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark' > ... I agree that wa here is a reference to the subject, but also to the patient, as the underlying stems here are stative. > These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if active verbs can be used > in the same way: > > wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals' Here I think the form is essentially 3pInd-(A3)-heals 'he heals them', i.e., that wa refers to the ones healed (indefinite or actually nonspecific third person patients), not to the healer (a specific, if indefinite reference). > And then there is the whole suite of implement terms that are built on > the framework of > > [NOM]-i-VERB > > where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that VERB is enacted by > means of something. Usually, if a noun sits in front: > > NOUN-i-VERB > > then the noun is the object of the verb's action. Rarely, however, it > seems that the noun can be the head of the derived noun phrase, and > implies that the noun is used to perform the verbal action, rather than > that it is the object of the verbal action. I only have one example at > the moment, and it's not as clear as I would like. > > moNzezi-i-gattushi > brass -i- explode > 'the brass thing that is used to explode' > = 'gun cap' > > As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal -i- exists; it might > just be I'd agree that it could be there, "hidden," and missed in transcription. > moNzezi-gattushi > 'exploding brass' Another possibility here is that in this case ga functions to form a stative of the sort invariably formed by the outer instrumental na= 'by heat'. In essence the inner instrumental ga- here is an oblique reference 'with violence' and the (patient) subject is governed by the underlying stem ttus^i. The clause structure is similar to maN'ze na'= z^ide iron with heat red "red hot poker" > Assuming that such constructions do exist, however, > I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i- > nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and > means 'that which is used to enact VERB'. I'd argue that as constructions like NOUN(instrument) i-VERB are admittedly more the norm it would be more likely that wa was standing in for an unspecified instrumental noun, though if nouns in other capacities can occur we might want to admit that wa might also stand in those capacities, too. Whether we might want to allow wa to occur with agents "bronze that causes an explosion" depends on a number of factors, of course - whether this is the same wa that marks indefinite patients or not, and whether we're really convinced that that wa is itself restricted to patients. > In fact, we can find up to three variants of the > same i-VERB nominalization. > > NOUN-i-VERB > moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube > coffee -i- grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > Here, 'coffee' is an object noun. > > i-VERB > i-dhittube > i-grind > 'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder' > > Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-: > > wa-i-VERB > wedhittube > wa-i-grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > But does this last construction mean > > 'thing used to grind (things)' > > or > > '(thing) used to grind things' ? > > My gut feeling favors the first interpretation, and I think our speakers > have also favored that, but it is really hard to find words that clearly > distinguish the matter. My gut feeling is the opposite, of course, though I really haven't presented any general line of evidence in favor of it. However, at a minimum I feel it simplifies matters to have a single wa behaving in a consistent way in several different contexts, rather than one indefinite patient wa and one nominalization/head-marking wa, with overlapping but different patterns of agreement. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 09:41:17 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 01:41:17 -0800 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: > As I start to write my thesis, beginning with an overview > of Omaha history, a miscellany of questions has been > occurring to me, some relevant and some not. I thought > I would post some of these to the list, to find out what > is known about them. > > 1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River > is Pekitanoui. Does anyone know where that comes > from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy River'; compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', and pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy 'muddy river, Missouri river'. > 2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ > possibly come from something like MVS > *mni-s^ot(i)a, if we can preserve the m in *mni > and shift the sibilants forward a slot, as happens > in IO. Is this a likely etymology, or completely > off the mark? The latter, I fear. It's actually from Illinois /mihsoori/ 'canoe'. Michael McCafferty just wrote an article about this name, so I'll let him elaborate. best, David Costa From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 16:26:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:26:04 -0600 Subject: animate wa- Message-ID: Until I saw John's research from Bushotter, et al., below, I was going to suggest that Violet's and Regina's examples militated strongly against the 'valence reducer' analysis of WA- and in favor of the more traditional animate/inanimate, definite/indefinite analysis. But it seems that wa + kte *does* have a reading that is different from wicha + kte, and it seems to be the intransitive meaning one would predict. So I guess I'm back to wondering about the distribution of wicha- and wa- in the context of a verb that virtually requires an animate object (if there is an object at all) like -kta/-kte. What it is starting to look like to (an amateur Dakotanist like) me, is that wicha- is indeed spreading at the expense of wa- in strictly verbal constructions. But wa- is found in the nominalized forms. (Of course we can still debate whether these two WA's are the same or different morphemes.) Bob > However, I have also found wakte-agli '(ones who) having killed return', > apparently referring to men who have returned successfully from a war > expedition, and waktoglapi 'they relate their (war) deeds (i.e., their > killings)'. These terms are also cited in Buechel, I see, and Buechel > lists wakte' 'to kill, to have killed or scalped; to triumph', which seems > to be the base term. Perhaps this is a more specialized term than > wic^hakte in wic^haktepi 'killing', etc., and so perhaps an older usage. > > These are far from a complete analysis of wa vs. wic^ha for animate/human > (indefinite) patients, and it is rather presumptious of me to try to > serialize the examples on the basis of it, but it looks to me like there > is at least some potential for wic^ha and wa to alternate in animate/human > references, though Regina's and Violet's assessments clearly favor wic^ha > as the productive formation. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 16:39:52 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:39:52 -0600 Subject: animate wa- Message-ID: What I was trying to suggest here that probably didn't come through in what I actually wrote is that WICHA is now "productive" with animate verbs like 'kill' and WA is non-productive and fossilized in the derived nominals. Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear. Bob > What > it is starting to look like to (an amateur Dakotanist like) me, is that wicha- > is indeed spreading at the expense of wa- in strictly verbal constructions. But > wa- is found in the nominalized forms. (Of course we can still debate whether > these two WA's are the same or different morphemes.) From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Thu Jan 1 17:03:37 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:03:37 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: And how about the Winnebago? Is there any > reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi > prior to 1700? Most of the contact information on the Hocank has them as being in central and southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. I'm not aware of any sources that site them West of the Mississippi, but this does not mean they did not have groups which had migrated there. Archeological data also seems to indicate that the Hocank were located East of the Mississippi for a substantial period prior to contact. Again, this does not preclude the possibility of small groups or bands migrating west. And what is the word for 'horse' > in Winnebago? s^uNuNk-xate is the word for horse in Hocank. Literally "Big Dog". Henning _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ? and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 1 17:06:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:06:41 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <029401c3d085$f3ddc110$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What I was trying to suggest here that probably didn't come through in > what I actually wrote is that WICHA is now "productive" with animate > verbs like 'kill' and WA is non-productive and fossilized in the derived > nominals. Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear. Bob That pretty well sums up my feelings, but with the caveat that wic^ha looks like it has been productive since at least the middle 1800s with kte. I picked out kte as a sample stem for simplicity's sake; things might look different with a wider variety of verbs. It looks like wa is not productive in animate references today, but it seems reasonable to suppose that there may have been a time when both wic^ha and wa were productive, with some difference in meaning, or some difference in social or geographic distribution. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 17:57:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:57:21 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: > 2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ > possibly come from The late Don Lance had a paper on the name Missouri (he taught at MU in Columbia). I don't know if he published it before his death last year or not. You might try Googling his name and see if you can come up with it or check NAMES, the journal of the American Name Society. > 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three > different contexts. We have the Maha as the > UmaN'haN, or the Omaha tribe, which is said to > mean 'upstream'. But we also have the Pani-maha, > who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems > sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha > or Arikara as well. And between the Kansas and > Platte rivers, we have a couple of small rivers > flowing into the Missouri from southeastern > Nebraska called Nemaha, presumably Ni-maha. > So are these maha's coming from the Missouria, > Osage or Kaws, with the meaning of 'upstream' > on the Missouri? The Nemaha is the 'river upstream', > the Pani-maha are the 'upstream Pawnees', and the > O-maha are the 'ones who dwell in an upstream context'? There's consensus among archaeologists (and, I suspect, linguists) that the migration of the Caddoan-speaking peoples was from South to North. For what it's worth. But I think there is more than one MAHA. While the names Omaha and (Quapaw) Imaha do appear to refer to 'upstream', I think Nemaha is from Chiwere ni 'water' and maha 'muddy' (another 'muddy river' name). Jimm can confirm this or not. Maha may also have a reading in Caddoan languages -- I simply don't know that. > 4. Tabeau, probably writing > around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a > "rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says > this is probably the Des Moines, . . . Could > mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old > (river of the) Maha? In French, it would be > pronounced something like /mohaN/, which is at least > as close to /umaN'haN/ as is /maha/. I can't say what's possible, but if it's Des Moines it's not likely from maha. The etymology of Des Moines has long been disuputed, but the best bet is from the new dictionary of Native American placenames that Bill Bright is editing (with the questionable help of several of us on the list). In the Des Moines entry Dave Costa relates it to the French shortening of the Algonquian tribal name /Moyiinkweena/, a derogatory term used by the Peorias meaning "visage plein d'ordure" (shit-faces). > 5. How long have the Iowa and Oto been separate tribes? > As I understand, the two languages are hardly more > than dialects of each other. These are vexed questions that are often not helped much by native accounts that strongly tend to collapse long periods of time into an account that will make sense to the layman. Spanish, Gallego (Galician) and Portuguese are linguistically quite close, but they have about a 1500 year internal time depth. All I can offer is that guesstimates of linguistic time depth have most often erred on the shallow side. > 6. Do we have any language material at all from the > Missouria? Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. > 7. It looks like we have at least two words for 'horse' > in MVS. The $oNge term seems to have been generalized (or transfered) to 'horse' pretty much all over, including Osage and Kaw. These latter do also have OS kkawa and KS kkawaye from Spanish. The poor dog then usually gets the innovated (derived) term: $oNge oyudaN 'canid + pull, drag' > $oNgiidaN 'dog' in Kansa. All this comes from the fact that dogs were used to pull travois. Miner lists /$uuNk/ 'dog, horse' for WI. And there are Hocangara words for 'saddle', etc. derived from it. The folks in Mauston, Wisc. can elaborate on that better than I. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 18:00:30 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:00:30 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Thanks, David! That's a big help! Is there a reference or anything for Michael's article? As a follow-up for question 2, if the name of the Missouri River comes from an Illinois word for 'canoe', and the Missouria tribe is so-called either for the river they live on or for a reputation about their canoes, then what did the Missouria call themselves? What did their Siouan neighbors (Osage, Kaw, Quapaw, Oto and Iowa) call them? The Omaha word for the Missouria given in Fletcher and La Flesche is Niu'tachi, which they translate as "those who came floating down dead". ni - 'water' u- 'in' t?e - 'dead', 'die' ni-u'-t?e - 'die in water', 'drown' I don't recognize /(a)chi/, but I gather that that's the 'came floating down' part. Perhaps 'grandmother speech' for athi', 'have arrived here' ? Best, Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 18:55:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:55:49 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a lexicography list for those woking on dictionaries. If you are interested but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo registration process, I expect. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 18:57:03 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:57:03 -0800 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? Dave > Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a > lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you are interested > but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then > to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo > registration process, I expect. > Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 19:07:43 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:07:43 -0800 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: > Thanks, David! That's a big help! Is there a reference or anything for > Michael's article? Well, Michael himself might want to provide this, but he could be offline due to the holidays, so it is: Michael McCafferty. 2003. 'On the Birthday and Etymology of the Placename Missouri'. Names 51.2 (June 2003): 31-45. Michael discusses this name in much more historical detail in his article, but the general connection between 'Missouri' and /mihsoori/ has been recognized for quite some time. It's mentioned on page 461 of HNAI volume 13, but it was known way before that as well. I have no idea who might have mentioned it in print first. Maybe Michael would know? David From boris at terracom.net Thu Jan 1 19:17:50 2004 From: boris at terracom.net (Al Knutson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:17:50 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Other than forgetting my Yahoo password, my registration went through directly. Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of David Costa Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:57 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: lexicography list. I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? Dave > Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a > lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you are interested > but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then > to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo > registration process, I expect. > Bob From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 1 19:56:04 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:56:04 -0600 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Michael's absence, here's what I have for Missouri(a): < French Missouris (pl.; 1687) < Fr. 8emess8rit (1673; the character 8 is used in French transcriptions of North American languages to represent the sounds spelled ou in French) < Illinois we:mihso:rit ?person who has a big canoe? < we:- (3d pers. sg. prefix o- in the changed mode of the conjunct order) + mihso:ri ?big canoe? (as missouri 1725, Internat. J. Amer. Ling. LVII. (1991) 374) + -t (3d pers. sg. conjunct suffix); < mihs- ?big? + -o:ri ?canoe? (< PA *o:si). Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal stop; unvoiced th] ?big? or *mehT- ?wooden? which have identical reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss ?wooden canoe? is made less likely by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia ?Frenchman? (lit. ?wooden-boat person?). Happy New Year, Alan From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Thu Jan 1 20:06:39 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:06:39 -0800 Subject: lexicography list. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've been a little wary of this. Does signing up with Yahoo mean an increase in spam? Otherwise the list seems like a fine idea. Wally > I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical > problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? > > Dave > > >> Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has >> started a lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you >> are interested but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to >> www.yahoogroups.com and then to lexicographylist to join. You have to >> go through the usual Yahoo registration process, I expect. > >> Bob > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Jan 1 20:16:36 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:16:36 -0800 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Funny, Michael and I just had a discussion about this last month. Ives Goddard showed a while ago that the reconstruction of Illinois /mihsooli/, Kickapoo /me0ooni/ 'boat', Menominee /mEhno:s/ 'raft' and Cree /mihtot/ 'raft' has to be Proto-Algonquian */meh0we0-/ ('0' = theta), where the */meh0-/ does indeed mean 'wood'. The Cree & Menominee cognates show that a */?0/ reconstruction is impossible. Miami /meehtikoo$ia/ 'Frenchman' is from an unrelated etymon, PA */me?tekwi/ 'tree'. Dave > Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal > stop; unvoiced th] 'big' or *mehT- 'wooden' which have identical > reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss 'wooden canoe' is made less likely > by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia 'Frenchman' (lit. > 'wooden-boat person'). From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 20:18:15 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:18:15 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Alan wrote: > Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal > stop; unvoiced th] ?big? or *mehT- ?wooden? which have identical > reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss ?wooden canoe? is made less likely > by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia ?Frenchman? (lit. > ?wooden-boat person?). I'm probably about to get myself in over my head here, but I'm not following this argument. If Proto-Algonquian 'big' *me?T- => mihs- in Illinois, and if Proto-Algonquian 'wood' *mehT- => mihs- in Illinois, then how does Illinois get meeht- for 'wood' in the case of Frenchmen? Would this be a borrowing from some other Algonquian language? If so, what would that have to do with their local word for a 'big' or 'wooden' canoe? Thanks, Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 21:28:52 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:28:52 -0600 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: Thanks to David, Bob and Alan for their replies on this, and to Michael for his original research! So the name Missouri comes from Illinois mihso:ri, which means 'big canoe'. It seems that it was used as an ethnonym for the Missouri tribe used by the Illinois, who appended a standard ethnonymic prefix, meaning 'people of', and which may have sounded something like ou- or we-. The French used the character 8 for this prefix, so their name for the Missouria tribe was something like 8-missouri, or 'the people of the big canoe'. Which came first, the ethnonym or the hydronym? >>From what has been posted, it looks to me like the ethnonym, and this would probably make more sense in terms of qualification by canoe. Is there any independent reason to believe that the Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. What if we consider it as a loan word from Missouria to Illinois, in which the Illinois reinterpreted it as a native word? The Missouria version of the Missouri River ought to be something like: ni-soje 'muddy water' If a bilingual Illinois dealt with them, he would learn that as their name for their river, and could translate that back into Illinois as pekitanoui. But as an ethnonym for the people, he might leave the Missouria version: 8-nisoje 'people of the muddy water', 'nisoje people' This would probably make no sense to unilingual Illinois, and some of them might "correct" the term to something that could be parsed sensibly in Illinois: 8-mihso:ri 'people of the big canoe' We would still need to get the name applied back to the river by the French. So if an Illinois speaker were confronted with the word nisoje referring to a river or a people living on that river, what would be the most efficient way for him to modify that word to be transparent and meaningful in Illinois? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 22:01:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:01:37 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: Mmmm, good question. I'm on several Yahoo lists, mostly hobbies, etc. and I do get lots of spam these days, although I didn't for a long time. I can't say whether their lists are open to harvesting email addresses. I imagine that they have a statement of their "privacy policy" somewhere on the Yahoogroups website. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wallace Chafe" > I've been a little wary of this. Does signing up with Yahoo mean an > increase in spam? Otherwise the list seems like a fine idea. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 1 21:56:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:56:37 -0600 Subject: lexicography list. Message-ID: I'd say just to write to Wayne himself and let his fingers do the walking. wayne_leman at sil.org Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: Re: lexicography list. > I tried to do this but wasn't able to sign up, due to repeated technical > problems on the part of Yahoo. Did anyone else experience this? > > Dave > > > > Several of you have probably been contacted by Wayne Leman who has started a > > lexicography list for those working on dictionaries. If you are interested > > but haven't gotten on Wayne's mailing list, go to www.yahoogroups.com and then > > to lexicographylist to join. You have to go through the usual Yahoo > > registration process, I expect. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 22:29:17 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:29:17 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: Thanks Henning! It's good to know this! Do you have a sense of when and whence the horse came to the Hocank? I suppose from the (Santee?) Sioux? Mid 1700's? Rory "Henning Garvin" cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: Historical questions owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/01/2004 11:03 AM Please respond to siouan And how about the Winnebago? Is there any > reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi > prior to 1700? Most of the contact information on the Hocank has them as being in central and southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. I'm not aware of any sources that site them West of the Mississippi, but this does not mean they did not have groups which had migrated there. Archeological data also seems to indicate that the Hocank were located East of the Mississippi for a substantial period prior to contact. Again, this does not preclude the possibility of small groups or bands migrating west. And what is the word for 'horse' > in Winnebago? s^uNuNk-xate is the word for horse in Hocank. Literally "Big Dog". Henning _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ? and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 1 22:58:16 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:58:16 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: >> 6. Do we have any language material at all from the >> Missouria? > > Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and > Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. In a quick scan of Lewis and Clark on their way upstream, I found one (p. 65): Wethea 'Hospitality' In net-Siouan, I suppose this would be Wi0ia (0 = thorn)? Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 03:25:42 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:25:42 -0600 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: > what > did the Missouria call themselves? What did their Siouan > neighbors (Osage, Kaw, Quapaw, Oto and Iowa) call them? "The Missouria name for themselves was Ni-u-t'a-tci [the u and final i carry acute accents] (Dorsey 1897:240)" (HNAI 13.461) The synonymy also gives Ioway, Omaha-Ponca, Quapaw, Osage and Kansa forms. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 03:45:47 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:45:47 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to David, Bob and Alan for their replies on > this, and to Michael for his original research! > > So the name Missouri comes from Illinois > mihso:ri, which means 'big canoe'. You're welcome, but check David's message again: he says the word comes from 'wood', not 'big'. My thanks to David for setting me straight there--and to the patient Siouanists during this Algonquian digression. > Is there any independent reason to believe that the > Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly > big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. And recasting the question: as the Illinois had the word and thing 'canoe', why would they distinguish the Missourias as 'those who have canoes'? According to Carl Masthay's edition of an Illinois-French dictionary of early 18c., the basic sense of the word miss8ri was 'dugout canoe'; a bark canoe was called 8ic8es mis8ri. So neither does it appear that the Missourias were distinguished for having dugouts rather than bark canoes. Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 2 05:08:36 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:08:36 -0600 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: >> So the name Missouri comes from Illinois >> mihso:ri, which means 'big canoe'. > > You're welcome, but check David's message again: he says the word comes > from 'wood', not 'big'. My thanks to David for setting me straight > there--and to the patient Siouanists during this Algonquian digression. Oops! You're right! So mihso:ri = 'wooden canoe', or 'dugout'. >> Is there any independent reason to believe that the >> Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly >> big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. > > And recasting the question: as the Illinois had the word and thing > 'canoe', why would they distinguish the Missourias as 'those who have > canoes'? Indeed. > According to Carl Masthay's edition of an Illinois-French dictionary of > early 18c., the basic sense of the word miss8ri was 'dugout canoe'; a > bark canoe was called 8ic8es mis8ri. So neither does it appear that the > Missourias were distinguished for having dugouts rather than bark canoes. Is mis8ri = miss8ri ? And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? If so, then wouldn't that mean that mihso:ri has become the basic word for 'boat' or 'canoe' in Illinois, with presumption of 'dugout' if it's unqualified? But if the mihs- part of that is from PA 'wood', then the -o:ri part should be 'boat'. Is that ever used independently in Illinois? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 2 05:46:00 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:46:00 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: >> what >> did the Missouria call themselves? What did their Siouan >> neighbors (Osage, Kaw, Quapaw, Oto and Iowa) call them? > > "The Missouria name for themselves was Ni-u-t'a-tci [the u and final i > carry acute accents] (Dorsey 1897:240)" (HNAI 13.461) The synonymy also > gives Ioway, Omaha-Ponca, Quapaw, Osage and Kansa forms. Thanks, Alan! That certainly seems to match the Omaha term given in Fletcher and La Flesche. Ni-u'-t?a- almost certainly means 'drowned', and the (a)tci is probably equivalent to OP athi', pending John, Bob, or one of the Chiwerenists shooting me down. I've just run across a very interesting, if confusing, discussion of this name by an early Presbyterian missionary, Rev. Wm. Hamilton, in Transactions and Reports of the Nebraska State Historical Society, vol. 1 (1885). The spelling given varies wildly from one mention to the next, starting with Ne-yu-ta-ca, and morphing to Ne-u-tach, then Ne-u-cha-ta, then ne o-cha-tan-ye, to ne-o-cha-ta. Explanation 1 says it means they were camped at the mouth of a stream (which makes perfect sense if u-tach or whatever means 'mouth of a river' in Chiwere); explanation 2 given by Le Fleche [sic] says some men were in a canoe and were drowned. This goes along with both Illinois canoes and Siouan drowning, but it begs for very interesting story to explain it! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 2 06:28:05 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:28:05 -0700 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three > different contexts. We have the Maha as the > UmaN'haN, or the Omaha tribe, which is said to > mean 'upstream'. But we also have the Pani-maha, > who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems > sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha > or Arikara as well. The element here is *maNhaN 'upstream, against the flow'. This is well attested in Dhegiha, mostly in a form *hkimaNhaN that doesn't seem to appear in Omaha-Ponca, where ita'gha=tta is used for 'upstream'. (And 'downstream' is hi'de=atta, etymologically 'to the base'.) A Quapaw village named i'maNhaN is known. In Ioway-Otoe you find iroma(N)ha(N) and uma(N)'ha(N) 'upstream', and in Winnebago maNaNhaN' 'go against the medium', and hiromaN'haNiNj^a' 'at the upper part of a river'. As far as I know the element isn't known outside of these languages. I think paNdhiNmaNhaN in the sense of 'Skiri' or 'Arikara' is transparently analyzable as 'upstream Caddoan'. The Skiri are upstream of the rest of the Pawnee on the Platte, and the Arikara are upstream of the Omahas and Poncas on the Missouri. Any supposition that the term applies to the Omaha comes from uninitiated outsiders being confused by the element maNhaN. > And between the Kansas and > Platte rivers, we have a couple of small rivers > flowing into the Missouri from southeastern > Nebraska called Nemaha, presumably Ni-maha. > So are these maha's coming from the Missouria, > Osage or Kaws, with the meaning of 'upstream' > on the Missouri? The Nemaha is the 'river upstream', > the Pani-maha are the 'upstream Pawnees', and the > O-maha are the 'ones who dwell in an upstream context'? The element here is *maNh-a 'earth, mud, muddy, miry', cf. Dakhota maNkha (maNh-ka) 'earth', OP maNa' 'bank', (s^u'de)maNha 'fog' (riverbank smoke), Ks maNha' 'land', Os niN'maNhaN 'marsh', IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', Wi maNaNha' 'mud, be muddy'. > 4. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Big Sioux > River is known to the French as the River of the Mahas, > apparently because the Omaha-Ponka were dwelling there > in the late 17th century. Tabeau, probably writing > around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a > "rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says > this is probably the Des Moines, but the river seems > always to be mentioned in the context of the Minnesota, > the James and the Upper Missouri, which suggests the > Big Sioux. To Tabeau, the river of the Mahas seems > appropriately to be Omaha Creek in northeastern > Nebraska, where the Omaha Big Village is located, > but this is barely mentioned only in passing. Could > mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old > (river of the) Maha? In French, it would be > pronounced something like /mohaN/, which is at least > as close to /umaN'haN/ as is /maha/. Given the identification of the stream, that seems very likely to me. > 7. It looks like we have at least two words for 'horse' > in MVS. In the Lower Missouri region, we have /kawa/, > from Spanish 'caballo', shared by the Osage, Kaw and > I understand the Pawnee. I think the Dhegiha form is Ks kka'wa, Os hka'wa, the difference in kk and hk being something of an arbitrary orthographic convention, though preaspiration of the tense stops is pretty audible in Osage. There is an Omaha name kkawa'ha listed in Fletcher & LaFlesche (1911:189), a nikkie name in the INs^ta'saNda clan, "meaning uncertain." This could be either 'horse hide' or just 'horse'. Wichita has kawa':rah 'horse' (citation form) ~ taaras (combining form) (a' = accented a). Since the Osage are reported to have obtained horses int he early days by raising the Wichita, maybe they got the term from the same source. (Wichita also has wa:kha'c 'cow'.) > From further up, especially > perhaps the northeastern Nebraska region, we have > 'horse' derived from the 'dog' term, *s^uN'ka. In > Omaha, Ponka, Iowa and Oto, the word completely > shifts. In OP, a new word, s^iN'nudoN, is coined for > 'dog'. I'm pretty sure Bob Rankin discovered an etymology for s^inudaN, but I'm not recalling the details. > What do Iowa and Oto have for 'dog'? In > Lakhota, the new form for 'horse' is the qualified > 'dog', s^uN'ka-wakhaN'. Is it the same in all the > Dakotan languages? And what is the word for 'horse' > in Winnebago? Ioway s^uN(uN)'ne, Otoe s^uN(uN)e 'horse' = eng, n = n or enye before e and i Ioway s^uN(uN)'keni (or -kene), Otoe suN(uN)'keni (or -kene) 'dog' (common dog) (cf. OP ukkedhiN 'common') Wi s^uNuN'k 'dog, horse', s^uNuNxe'de, s^uNuNkxe'de 'horse' (big dog) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 2 06:34:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:34:25 -0700 Subject: lexicography list. In-Reply-To: <031901c3d0b2$e6995370$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Mmmm, good question. I'm on several Yahoo lists, mostly hobbies, etc. > and I do get lots of spam these days, although I didn't for a long time. Everybody gets more spam these days, whether or not they have anything to do with Yahoo. I never used to get it via the University, but now useful communications there are drowned in Viagra offers. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 2 06:37:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:37:15 -0700 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: <3FF4E4B6.3080302@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > "The Missouria name for themselves was Ni-u-t'a-tci [the u and final i > carry acute accents] (Dorsey 1897:240)" (HNAI 13.461) The synonymy also > gives Ioway, Omaha-Ponca, Quapaw, Osage and Kansa forms. I was going to say, first stop for ethnonyms is always the synonymies in the HNAI. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 2 13:32:35 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:32:35 -0000 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 2 14:26:44 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:26:44 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? Bruce From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 14:25:12 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:25:12 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: >>According to Carl Masthay's edition of an Illinois-French dictionary of >>early 18c., the basic sense of the word miss8ri was 'dugout canoe'; a >>bark canoe was called 8ic8es mis8ri. > > Is mis8ri = miss8ri ? > > And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? Yes to both. In miss8ri, the 8 = ou, and in 8ic8es it's w. (Cf. Abenaki wigwa-ol, Plains Cree waskwayi-o:s- 'birchbark canoe'.) > If so, then wouldn't that mean that mihso:ri has > become the basic word for 'boat' or 'canoe' in > Illinois, with presumption of 'dugout' if it's > unqualified? Seems so to me, but I'll defer to David. (He has written The Miami-Illinois Language, 2002, U. Neb. Press, and An Overview of the Illinois Language in the intro to Masthay's edition of the Illinois-French dict.) > But if the mihs- part of that is from PA 'wood', > then the -o:ri part should be 'boat'. Is that > ever used independently in Illinois? I don't think so (David?), but it is used in at least one other noun, irer8ri 'canot de bois, pirogue', which seems literally to mean something like 'tippy canoe'(?) The same widespread Proto-Algonquian word *o:Si [S = esh] is used as the bare noun in several languages, e.g., Plains Cree o:si & Menominee o:s, and occurs with the 'wood' prefix also in several eastern languages. In Ojibway, it occurs (only?) in we-mitig-o:Si 'Frenchman', lit. 'he who has a wooden boat/canoe'. This construction for 'Frenchman' has a long history, having been recorded by Champlain in Montagnais in 1608-12 as mistigoche, whence it was probably calqued south- and westward (Illinois-Miami, Shawnee, Fox, Ojibway). Alan From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 2 14:30:27 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:30:27 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes the use of wa- meaning 'around' could be the explanation of wawinyanka 'womanizer= sleeping around'. ?........ Not seriously Bruce From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 15:15:54 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:15:54 -0600 Subject: Mandan re-redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > The element here is *maNh-a 'earth, mud, muddy, miry', cf. Dakhota maNkha > (maNh-ka) 'earth', OP maNa' 'bank', (s^u'de)maNha 'fog' (riverbank smoke), > Ks maNha' 'land', Os niN'maNhaN 'marsh', IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', Wi > maNaNha' 'mud, be muddy'. Any chance this is part of Mandan maNta 'Missouri River'? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 2 15:31:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:31:06 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: There is more somewhere. I recall John and I puzzling over several names. I think one turned out to be "Inspires Fear" (the common MVS name), but there were several other names. I thought it was in L&C names we were asked to do for the fellow who was doing the new edition, but it could have been something else. I saw some in print somewhere too and immediately xeroxed a copy for myself. It's at the office and I'll have to find it. It's clear the language was very similar to Otoe though, since the remnant of the tribe joined the Otoes and the old reservation in Oklahoma along with the name of the tribe is "Otoe-Missouri" today. They spoke one language, and I think they are generally aware which families are Otoe and which are historically Missouria. Jimm could clarify this I'm sure. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Historical questions > > > > > >> 6. Do we have any language material at all from the > >> Missouria? > > > > Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and > > Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. > > In a quick scan of Lewis and Clark on their way upstream, > I found one (p. 65): > > Wethea 'Hospitality' > > In net-Siouan, I suppose this would be Wi0ia (0 = thorn)? > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 2 15:46:57 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:46:57 -0600 Subject: postpositions Message-ID: In Siouan yes; I can't speak for Caddoan. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 7:32 AM Subject: postpositions > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > Bruce > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 16:36:54 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:36:54 -0800 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: > And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. > If so, then wouldn't that mean that mihso:ri has become the basic word for > 'boat' or 'canoe' in Illinois, with presumption of 'dugout' if it's > unqualified? Even by the old Illinois period, it appears to be the basic 'boat' or 'canoe' word in Illinois, definitely so in Miami. Its cognate is also the basic 'boat' word in Kickapoo. > But if the mihs- part of that is from PA 'wood', then the -o:ri part should be > 'boat'. Is that ever used independently in Illinois? No, only as a final. But it is used independently in a few languages, as in Plains Cree /o:si/ 'canoe'. (Remember, Cree /mihtot/ = 'raft'.) David From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 2 17:38:04 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:38:04 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: >>And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? > > > It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not > positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from > Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a > morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and > its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Alan From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 18:34:38 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:34:38 -0800 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: >> It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not >> positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from >> Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a >> morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and >> its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. > But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not > the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, > birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. Dave From boris at terracom.net Fri Jan 2 20:39:33 2004 From: boris at terracom.net (Al Knutson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:39:33 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: <3FF5AC7C.1070901@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: In Menomini (from Bloomfiled's Lexicon) p281 wi:ki:h (-san) birch-bark, piece of birch-bark (inanimate noun?) wi:ki:hsapah birch-bark wall wi:ki:hsa:tek (-ok) white birch tree (animate noun) Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:38 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Missouri David Costa wrote: >>And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? > > > It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not > positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from > Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a > morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and > its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Alan From boris at terracom.net Fri Jan 2 21:26:36 2004 From: boris at terracom.net (Al Knutson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:26:36 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To the 'birch' material in Menomin add: we:kop 'basswood bark, piece of basswood bark (pl: wi:kopyan) we:kopemeh 'basswood tree (pl: wi:kopemehsyak) AN Bloomfield p 275 Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:38 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Missouri David Costa wrote: >>And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? > > > It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not > positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from > Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a > morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and > its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. Alan From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 2 21:53:24 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:53:24 -0800 Subject: birchbark versus birch Message-ID: > But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not > the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, > birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. It might also be worth mentioning here that in Ojibwe /wiigwaas/ as an animate noun means 'birch tree', while /wiigwaas/ as an INanimate noun means 'birch bark'. (From the Nichols/Nyholm Minnesota Ojibwe dictionary.) David From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 00:34:01 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:34:01 -0600 Subject: birch (was Missouri) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: >>>It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not >>>positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from >>>Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a >>>morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and >>>its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. > > >>But I imagine the operative idea here is that of the BARK of the birch, not >>the birch-tree itself, so 'birchbark boat'. Cf. Ojibway wi:kwa:s 'birchbark, >>birch-tree' and wi:kwa:si-^ci:ma:n 'birchbark canoe'. > > > Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois > root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. I think it means 'birchbark' in the Algonquian languages. Gravier gives 8ic8essi 'canot d'ecorce, item ecorce de boul[e]au' ('bark-canoe, also birchbark'), and 8ic8essimingi is thus best translated as 'birchbark tree' rather than 'birch-tree tree'. The fact that Gravier glosses it as 'bouleau arbre' ('birch-tree') doesn't mean that 8ic8essi means "plain birch" in Illinois. An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. If Illinois 8ic8essi really meant 'birch-tree', then -imingi would be redundant. For paper/white/canoe birch, besides Bloomfield's Menominee form wi:ki:hsa:htek cited by Alan K, there's Rogers' Northern Ojibway wi:kwa:ssa:htik. Both mean literally 'birchbark-tree' and consist of the word for birchbark plus the Proto-Algonquian medial *-a:htekw- 'stick, stem'. I think Illinois 8ic8essi is thus just what Gravier defined it as, 'birchbark'. Alan H. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 00:57:10 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:57:10 -0800 Subject: birch (was Missouri) Message-ID: Tho one problem is that this would actually produce a form *wi:kekopimin$ya, not *wi:kopimin$ya (the /o/ should really be /we/), so you'd need haplology to make this work, and I can't think of any other examples of haplology in Algonquian derivation. Plus, do we know that basswood bark was used for houses? I always thought the salient usage of basswood bark was for cordage. > An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya > 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- > 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 01:12:34 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:12:34 -0500 Subject: Checking connection. Please disregard Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ? and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 02:49:13 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:49:13 -0600 Subject: birch (was Missouri) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: > Tho one problem is that this would actually produce a form *wi:kekopimin$ya, > not *wi:kopimin$ya (the /o/ should really be /we/), so you'd need haplology > to make this work Siebert (1967) reconstructs PA *wi:kopiminSya 'basswood' on the basis of: Fox wi:kopimiSi Menominee we:kopemeh Ojibway wi:kopi:mi:SS Shawnee wiikopimiiSi Miami-Illinois wikopiminSi Penobscot wik at pimisi [@ = schwa] Whether he was warranted in his assertion that it comes from PA *wi:k- 'shelter, house, dwell' + *-ekop- 'bark' I don't know, but it does make sense semantically--if not haplologically! (Incidentally, the word was borrowed into English in late 18c. as wicopy, with at least 3 fiber-yielding referents.) > do we know that basswood bark was used for > houses? I always thought the salient usage of basswood bark was for cordage. Yes, it was used in houses, and yes, it's main use was as cordage. Among the Ojibway, at least, basswood bark (or fiber prepared from it) was used for lashing together the pole framework of wigwam-style houses and securing the sheets of birchbark to the frame. Wigwam (Abenaki) and wickiup (Fox) also come from the root *wi:k-, as perhaps does the birchbark word. Alan H. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Sat Jan 3 06:21:36 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:21:36 -0600 Subject: Historical questions Message-ID: I'm coming in here rather late on this discussion of the name for the Missouria People, so I'll try to pick up and insert the various comments from the past several days. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Historical questions > It's clear the language was very similar to Otoe though, since the remnant of > the tribe joined the Otoes and the old reservation in Oklahoma along with the > name of the tribe is "Otoe-Missouri" today. They spoke one language, and I > think they are generally aware which families are Otoe and which are > historically Missouria. Jimm could clarify this I'm sure. > Bob The Missouria took refuge with the Otoes in 1798. It was said that there were about a 100 survivors who remained under their own leaders & chiefs for about 30-40 years. During this time, most intermarried with the Otoe, and by mid 1850s, the Missouria were being absorbed by the Otoe. However, families can recall to this day who are from the Missouria, and what family members were direct descendants. Some of these families are identified by surnames that identify the original Missouria ancestor, such as: Big Soldier, Gawhega, et.al. Truman Dailey's father, George Washington Dailey-Xra S^age (Old Eagle) was the last recognized Missouri Eagle Clan Chief. There were no more than 3 or 4 Clans that survived from the Missouria. The official tribal name is "Otoe-Missouria". It has an "-a" at the end. When old lders addressed a gathering of the people, they would say in the language: "Ho, Ji'were Nyu't^chi....." (Greetings! Otoe & Missouria People....". > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rory M Larson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: Historical questions > > > >> 6. Do we have any language material at all from the Missouria? > > > Very little that I know of -- some names from Lewis and > > > Clark at least. Maybe John and Jimm know of others. Dorsey mentioned a few instances of Missouria dialect in his transcription notes for his manusripts, however, as I recall, it seemed to have to do with sentence particles. There are word lists and kin terms that early chroniclers completed and these were noted on my bibliography at John's hosted site. Some old people seem to suggest that Truman Dailey had some peculiarities in his speech that could be attributed to some Missouria features of his father's language. There were some interesting uses of words, and even there were words that he did not know, but were known by his older sister. His mother was half Ioway-half Otoe. I never explored these differences out of regard to his age and stature. Good Native respect for elders does not permitt such direct questioning of an elder authority. In reviewing several Otoe texts that he recorded, I have not picked up anything different from the usual IOM speech patterns. Perhaps, Louanna F or Jill Greer, who also worked with him could share any unique Missouria dialectal variations. Dorsey had recorded a number of names, including: [NOTE: First rendering ultilizes additional fonts, including the Siouian fonts developed by John Koontz. This may become garbled by computers without these fonts, so I give a second rendering of the names in Net Siouian]: Nadw?X?nsheThk?y??e (Nadwa' XaN'she Thka'yiNGe) = Young White Mule. This name became shortened to the surname "White". ?nN?he X?nshe (UNna'he XaN'she) = Big/ Great Acheiver M?nje X?nshe (MuN'je XaN'she) = Big Black Bear M?yanK?da X?nshe (Ma'yaN Ki'da XaN'she) = Great Guardian of the Country, a.k.a., Big Soldier J?dandaWah? (Je'daN Wahu') = Coming From the Ocean Ch?daWeMi (Chu'daWeMi) = Light In the House Woman Ah?M?ngri (Ahu' MaN'gri) = Wing Above In this sampling of names above (there are more), the only non-Ioway/ Otoe rendering is in the word "xaN'she" (big; great). NOTE: Ioway: xaN'nye ~ xaNn~e; Otoe: xaN'je. I have rendered the word as given by Dorsey, i.e., xaN'she; however, I have since wondered if it is correct. Some of Dorsey's IOM narrative transcriptions use the letter "s" to denote theta sound, as in: thi (foot) would be written as "si". Then he proceeds to write the phoneme "s" as "sh" and does not seem to note instances of the phoneme "sh". He also neglects other features, such as glottal stops, etc. My question now is if the the word for Missouria "big; great" is indeed: xaN'she (OR) xaN'se? >>From the Journal of L&C we have: The Cheifs & Principal men of the Ottoes & Missouris made by M L. & W C the 3rd August 180410 Viz. Indian Names Tribe English Signifiation l.We-ar-ruge-nor Ottoe Little Thief 2.Shingo-ton go Otto Big horse We tha a Missourie Hospatallity 3.wau-pc-m Miss: Au-ho-ning ga M Ba Za con ja Ottoe Au-ho-ne-ga Miss. > > In a quick scan of Lewis and Clark on their way upstream, > > I found one (p. 65): > > Wethea 'Hospitality' > > In net-Siouan, I suppose this would be Wi0ia (0 = thorn)? > > Rory Perhaps this is an old term, however, I am unable to make anything of it at the moment. There seems to be some elements missing, as the combination of "i+a" in "Withia" is unlikely. I note that their English spelling is not too sharp either. > But we also have the Pani-maha, > > who are usually Loup or Skidi Pawnee, but seems > > sometimes to be used (or confused) for the Omaha > > or Arikara as well. I am not familiar with the above term. Pawnee in IOM is: PaNYi; Arickara/ Aricakaree is: PaNyi Busa ~ Butha (Sand Pawnee: I haven't a clue for the term). > > The element here is *maNhaN 'upstream, against the flow'. This is well > attested in Dhegiha, . In Ioway-Otoe you find iroma(N)ha(N) and > uma(N)'ha(N) 'upstream', > , IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', maN'ha: earth; dirt; (perhaps mud) maN'hathriN: mud; maN'hathriNthriN: muddy nyi'mahaN: dirty water (Nemaha River). However, the term nyi'soje (smoky waters) is used as well for muddy waters. And then, there is Nyi'Suje (Otoe)/ Nyi'Shuje (Ioway) (Red or Smoky Waters) . This is the name for the Missouri River. > Ni-u'-t?a- almost certainly means 'drowned', > and the (a)tci is probably equivalent to OP athi', > > Presbyterian missionary, Rev. Wm. Hamilton, in > ne-o-cha-ta. Explanation 1 says it means they > were camped at the mouth of a stream > of a river' in Chiwere); explanation 2 given by > Le Fleche [sic] says some men were in a canoe > and were drowned. This goes along with both > Illinois canoes and Siouan drowning, but it begs > for very interesting story to explain it! > I imagine the drowning is pioneer~trader folk etymology. ??t^achi (N~u't?achi) means quite simply that they Dwell at the River Fork. (?i [nyi/ n~i] water; ut?a' river fork/ branch; chi dwell; reside; live). > >> Is there any independent reason to believe that the > >> Missouria were once noted for their outstandingly > >> big canoes? If not, this label seems a little odd. Current discussions on the Algonquin source of the name Missouria has rendered the gloss or reference to either dugout canoes or even birchbark canoes. I am not aware of any historical documentations that the Missouria made dugouts or birchbark canoes. Tribal references in traditional stories simply use the term: "ba'je" (boat), and make no further distinction. However, does anyone know if the birch tree used for canoe making grows presently or historically in northern Missouri State? Jimm > From wablenica at mail.ru Sat Jan 3 11:30:20 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:30:20 +0300 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello John, KJE> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: >> What I was trying to suggest here that probably didn't come through in >> what I actually wrote is that WICHA is now "productive" with animate >> verbs like 'kill' and WA is non-productive and fossilized in the derived >> nominals. Sorry if I didn't quite make that clear. Bob KJE> That pretty well sums up my feelings, but with the caveat that wic^ha KJE> looks like it has been productive since at least the middle 1800s with KJE> kte. I picked out kte as a sample stem for simplicity's sake; things KJE> might look different with a wider variety of verbs. It looks like wa is KJE> not productive in animate references today, but it seems reasonable to KJE> suppose that there may have been a time when both wic^ha and wa were KJE> productive, with some difference in meaning, or some difference in social KJE> or geographic distribution. I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? Talking about "animate wa-", let's consider some sample of wa- verbs, say, wa-a- subset. These have a great deal of detransitivized verbs with animate or at least not exclusively inanimate objects implied (one third of 60 wa-a- verbs). I doubt that there is a considerable discrimination toward verbs with animate PAT for taking a wa- plug. Below I add two lists, with wicha- and wa-a- words. Talking about wicha- we should consider also the functions of wicha- as nominalizer with the meaning of "human" (not only with body parts). I excluded the body parts from the wicha- list (as well as derivatives of wichasha and wichaxpi), but kept the derivatives of wicha- male, just for case. Best wishes, Constantine Chmielnicki 1. Wicha- prefixed. wicha'akih^?aN Starving, famine wicha'atkuku a father, their father wicha'bapi Blame wicha'caNcaN The ague wicha'chepa Human fatness, obesity wicha'chepahala a certain high but not wide mountain wicha'cheya Weeping, crying wicha'chiNca Children, posterity, offspring, wicha'cokuN Threatening, intending evil wicha'chuwita The sense of cold experienced by human beings, the feeling of coldness wicha'glata the women who follow the men in singing at the war dance or other like dances wicha'gnakapi Dead bodies laid on top of the ground or scaffolds; the scaffold on which a dead person is placed wicha'gnas^ka gooseberries wicha'gnaye a person who deceives; deception wicha'g^aNg^aN Not crowded a sprinkling of people wicha'hooyu'spa a voice or sound record; a sound recorder wicha'huNkake Ancestors wicha'huNku a mother, mothers wica'h^aNh^aN wicha'h^aNh^aN the smallpox wicha'h^api bodies interred, graves, tombs wicha'h^api ogna'ke a coffin wicha'h^ca an old man; a father-in-law wicha'h^muNg^e s?a [R.: a magician] wicha'h^uNwiN Putrifaction wicha'h^wa Drowsiness wicha'z^ipa a wasp wicha'kahiyayA to carry round to them, to sing to them wicha'kahuN'huNzapi a cradle wicha'kah^apa a driver, one who drives wicha'kicas^la a barber wicha'kicilowaN to wail or sing for, as for those who have gone on the warpath etc. wicha'kichopi Calling, invitation wicha'kig^epi [R.: quarreling] wicha'kini Resurrection wicha'khipi Robbery wicha'ksapa Wisdom wicha'kte s?a One who kills wicha'ktepi Killing wicha'k?upi Giving wicha'luzahe Swiftness wicha'naks^ecapi The cholera wicha'naNka Tremor wicha'ni they live; life; prosperity; used of many, as wiconi is of one wicha'oh^?aNkho dexterity. wicha'phehiNkag^api False hair, a wig wicha'po a swelling wicha'sote a general dying, the decease of many wicha's^a Man, a man, mankind wicha'takunis^ni Destruction wicha'taNkag^api a tent with certain figures representing ribs and hearts, seemingly, painted somewhat horizontally around on the outer surface of the tipi wicha'thaNkala The gull; a bird that is white, breast blackish, legs short, bill short and not broad like that of pigeons; it lives near lakes, and it flies always over the water wicha'thaNs^na a single man wicha'thoka a male captive wicha'thokeca Differences; things different wicha'thuthe Roughness, as of the hands, but not chapping, which is: wichayuh^'i wicha't?A The dead wicha'witkowiNla [R.: a man who takes many women in succession, but does not keep any of them long wicha'wiwazica a widower wicha'woh^a a son-in-law, my son-inlaw a man who lives with his relatives, lit. a buried man, or one who being attracted to a family stays on with them wicha'woh^a thatha'h^ca a small-sized nig^e saNla, antilope wicha'woh^ayA to take or have for a son-in-law wicha'wota a feast or banquet wicha'ya Manly wicha'yaz^ipa a bee, bees wicha'yaz^ipa thachaN'haNpi Honey wicha'yasupi Condemnation; pronouncing sentence wicha'yas^?iNyaNyaN s?e In sudden surprise, esp. in seeing something never before seen wicha'yataNpi Praise, compliments wicha'yazaN a being sick, a sickness wicha'yuhe a master wicha'yuh^?i Chapping, as of the hands wicha'yuskapi Purgatory wicha'yuwah^panica Making poor wicha'yuwiNtapi Honoring, as the Dakotas do at feasts, calling the host by some signifying relationship or title of friendship, or the gesture of stroking in or before the face in token of respect or friendly greeting and saying; Hai'ye, haiye 2. Wicha- as an infix. awi'chas^?a Shouting awi'chayaspuya The itch, itching aze'wichahiNs^ma a certain black caterpillar found in woods huwi'chayuthipa a little piece of meat that is found between the muscles below the knees of a buffalo is^ta'wichaniyaN an epidemic of sore eyes[R.: sore eyes is^ta'wichaniyaNpi wi The month of March is^ta'wichayazaN wi the moon in which sore eyes prevail; a moon answering generally to the month of March nuN'h^ wicha'h^loke s?e With ears opened ola'kholwichaye s^ni Not caring for relatives, without natural affection o'wichak?ola hu Western virgin's bower, traveller's joy, the old man's board. Clematis ligustici folia The crowfoot family owi'chawapi a list, as of names owo'wichak?u an issue station phez^i' iwi'chakhoyaka Dark-green bulrush. Scirpus atrovirens. sipha'wichayaksa a certain black beetle that snaps. When people have pain in the tips of the toes, they ^se this word to denote it, assuming that this beetle has bitten them thawo'hiyaye wicha'wote The Paschal Lamb thewi'chamni Sweating thi'wichakte a murderer; to commit murder thiwi'chaktepi Murder wauN'spewichakhiye an apostle, disciple wawi'chak?u to donate, make a donation wawi'chak?upi a gift wazi'wicha'gnas^ka Pine berries wi'wichagnupi Accusation, blaming wi'wichaz^ica Riches wi'wichayuNg^api Questions wol'wichayapi a banquet, a feast wo'wichagnaye Deception wo'wichakigna The Holy Spirit, the Comforter. A comforter wo'wichak?upi Allowance, distribution, issue; offering 3. Animate wa-. waa'blezA to be observing, to be clear-sighted, have the use of one's senses waa'chaNze to be angry at others, ill-tempered waa'chaNzekA to be ill-tempered waa'hiNh^payA to have something fall on one; an idiomatic express.We were lucky onesto be fallen on something waa'hoyeyA to reprove, scold. Note: the 1st pers. singl. is not used waa'iyA to talk about, to slander; to try a case in court waa'iye s?a a slanderer waa'kag^A to add to, to make a lie on waa'kag^api a making on; a blasphemy perhaps waa'kicag^A to play jokes on; make sport of waa'kiktuNz^A to forget waa'kiktuNz^api Forgetfulness waa'khita to hunt, seek waa'nag^optaN to listen to, obey waa'nakiks^iN to expose one's self for others, to take the place of one in danger waa'napta to stop, forbid people waa'nataN to rush on, make an attack waa'phe to wait, be in waiting waa'sniyAN to heal, make well waa'sniyaN a healer, a healing waa's?api Applause by acclamation, waa's?iN to covet, desire what is another's; to stay where others are eating expecting to share waa'uNyeyA to scare away, as game by one's coming waa'yuptA to answer --It would be interesting, of course, to learn the difference between wawiyuNg^api, wiwichayuNg^api, wi'yuNg^api, and wo'(w)iyuNg^e From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:48:36 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:48:36 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: Listeros, Apparently the filter installed on my e-mail account to counteract junk mail acted upon messages coming in from the Siouan list. The messages I missed concerning Missouri and related matters have been forwarded to me by another member of the list and I have a few comments. I will mark my responses with my initials MM: ======================== >As I start to write my thesis, beginning with an overview of Omaha history, >a >miscellany of questions has been occurring to me, some relevant and some >not. >I thought I would post some of these to the list, to find out what is known >about them. >1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does >anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy River'; compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', and /pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy/ 'muddy river, Missouri river'. MM: The first recording of an Algonquian name for the Missouri River was done on either June 25 or June 26, 1673, by Jacques Marquette during his stopover at the Peoria village on the Des Moines River. We can see the hydronym that the Peoria, a Miami-Illinois-speaking tribe, gave him on his holograph map of the Mississippi. Marquette wrote (8 = the sound /w/). This is Miami-Illinois /peekihtanwi/, a third-person inanimate intransitive conjunct verb that has undergone initial change (/piik-/ > /peek-/ ). It means ?it-flows-mud?: /peek-/ ?mud?, /-ihtan-/ ?flow? , and /-wi/ the requisite verb suffix. Verbs are commonly place names in Miami-Illinois, as elsewhere in Algonquian. This Miami-Illinois term is cognate of course with the Fox term offered above. In late historical times the river was known in Miami-Illinois as /peekamiiki siipiiwi/ ?it-is-mud-water river. Marquette's map can be found in a number of publications, but the best copy is Plate V in Sarah Jones Tucker's collection of maps on early Illinois: _ Indian Villages of the Illinois Country_, Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 2(1). Pt. 1. Springfield, 1942. Her copy is the size of the original, which is at the Jesuits' archives in St-Jerome, Quebec. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ? and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 14:56:11 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:56:11 -0600 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: <009201c3d1c2$064fa790$cc430945@JIMM> Message-ID: Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > However, does anyone know if the birch tree used for canoe making grows > presently or historically in northern Missouri State? The southern limit of white/paper/canoe birch (exclusive of the Appalachians) is from N. Ohio to N. Illinois to N. Iowa to S. Dakota. I don't know what other birch species might range further south and have the necessary trunk-diameter and bark characteristics. Elm-bark was also used for building canoes in the eastern U.S. Alan H. From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:05:38 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:05:38 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: ---------- From: "R. Rankin" To: Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 9:57 am >2. The name Missouri itself looks like it _might_ possibly come from The late Don Lance had a paper on the name Missouri (he taught at MU in Columbia). I don't know if he published it before his death last year or not. MM: Don?s paper, titled ?The Pronunciation of Missouri: Variation and Change in American English,? came out just recently in American Speech (Vol. 78, No. 3, Fall 2003). I helped him with the Algonquian language aspects of the paper that are discussed in the introduction. ? 3. The element /maha/ shows up in at least three different contexts. MM: For the record, occurs on Marquette?s map of the Mississippi, rather near , >4. Tabeau, probably writing around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a >"rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says this is probably the >Des >Moines, . . . Could mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old >(river ? of the) Maha? MM: No. This is simply an English speaker?s attempt to write the French term ?riviere des moines?. The etymology of Des Moines has long been disuputed, but the best bet is from the new dictionary of Native American placenames that Bill Bright is editing (with the questionable help of several of us on the list). MM: True, although there was really no good reason why it was disputed. There were never any ?monks? (Fr. Moines) on this river. And it has been known for a long time (see Callendar?s piece on the Illinois in HNAI vol. 15) that the French referred to the Illinois band known as the Moingwena as ?les Moines,? shortening the name of this people just as they shortened the names of many tribes (Les Pes for the Peoria, les Kas for the Kaskaskia, les Mis for Miami, les Ouias for the Ouiatanons, les Poux for the Potawatomi, etc., etc. Dave Costa figured out and explained the ?shit-face? etymology of ?Moines? in his Miami-Illinois tribe names paper (Miami-Illinois Tribe Names, Proceedings of the Thirty-first Algonquian Conference (2000): 30-53). I took Dave?s ball, or cowpie, and ran with it in my recent paper in the journal names on ?Missouri,? ("On the Birthday and Etymology of the Placename Missouri") by showing the name's development in French, British and American cartography?and getting quite a bit of flack from folks in Des Moines, Iowa, and Des Moines, Oregon. :-) Michael In the Des Moines entry Dave Costa relates it to the French shortening of the Algonquian tribal name /Moyiinkweena/, a derogatory term used by the Peorias meaning "visage plein d'ordure" (shit-faces). _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:10:51 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:10:51 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: From: "David Costa" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 11:07 am >Thanks, David! That's a big help! Is there a reference or anything for >Michael's article? Well, Michael himself might want to provide this, but he could be offline due to the holidays, so it is: Michael McCafferty. 2003. 'On the Birthday and Etymology of the Placename Missouri'. Names 51.2 (June 2003): 31-45. Michael discusses this name in much more historical detail in his article, but the general connection between 'Missouri' and /mihsoori/ has been recognized for quite some time. It's mentioned on page 461 of HNAI volume 13, but it was known way before that as well. I have no idea who might have mentioned it in print first. Maybe Michael would know? MM: I follow Lounsbury?s in dealing with native place names, and nothing I read in the earlier descriptions of ?Missouri? satisfied Lounsbury?s requirements for **historical and linguistic accuracy**. That is why I wrote a new piece on ?Missouri?. I?m not aware of who first wrote about the place name. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Expand your wine savvy ? and get some great new recipes ? at MSN Wine. http://wine.msn.com From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:24:08 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:24:08 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: From: Alan Hartley To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 11:56 am In Michael's absence, here's what I have for Missouri(a): < French Missouris (pl.; 1687) < Fr. 8emess8rit (1673; the character 8 is used in French transcriptions of North American languages to represent the sounds spelled ou in French) < Illinois we:mihso:rit 'person who has a big canoe' < we:- (3d pers. sg. prefix o- in the changed mode of the conjunct order) + mihso:ri 'big canoe' (as missouri 1725, Internat. J. Amer. Ling. LVII. (1991) 374) + -t (3d pers. sg. conjunct suffix); < mihs- 'big' + -o:ri 'canoe' (< PA *o:si). MM: Actually, /we:mihso:rita/. As I noted in my paper on the topic, this is morphophonemic wi-mihs-oor-i-t-a. wi (and ablauted /wee-/)is the third-person possessive prefix. The rest of the term is ?wood?-?watercraft?-inanimate noun suffix-third person animate intransitive participle marker-third person animate intransitive participle ending. Illinois mihs- could stem from either Proto-Algonquian *me?T- [glottal stop; unvoiced th] 'big' or *mehT- 'wooden' which have identical reflexes in Illinois, but the gloss 'wooden canoe' is made less likely by the existence of the Illinois word meehtikoosia 'Frenchman' (lit. 'wooden-boat person'). MM: In my paper I went down the wrong path in analyzing Miami-Illinois /mihs-/. I took it to mean ?big? as in Miami-Illinois /mihsisiipiiwi/ ?big river?, /mihsihkinaahkwa/, the term for the painted terrapin but literally ?big turtle?, and perhaps even /mihsiimina/ ?pawpaw? (although that?s debatable.). In any event the ?Miss-? of ?Missouri? is /mihs-/ ?wood?. At the time I was working on ?Missouri? I was aware of only one term in Miami-Illinois with the /mihs-/ ?wood? initial and that was /mihsi/ ?piece of firewood? and so I naturally avoided that analysis. However, Ives Goddard set me straight. In the last couple of weeks I?ve found a handful of ?wood?-related terms in Miami-Illinois with the initial /mihs-/. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger ? learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:30:09 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:30:09 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: rom: "David Costa" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Historical questions Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2004, 12:16 pm Funny, Michael and I just had a discussion about this last month. Ives Goddard showed a while ago that the reconstruction of Illinois /mihsooli/, Kickapoo /me0ooni/ 'boat', Menominee /mEhno:s/ 'raft' and Cree /mihtot/ 'raft' has to be Proto-Algonquian */meh0we0-/ ('0' = theta), where the */meh0-/ does indeed mean 'wood'. The Cree & Menominee cognates show that a */?0/ reconstruction is impossible. Miami /meehtikoo$ia/ 'Frenchman' is from an unrelated etymon, PA */me?tekwi/ 'tree'. MM: My gut feeling is that the eastern cognate of this term, in Montagnais, originally did not refer to the French as paddlers of dugout canoes?hell, **everybody** had dugout canoes! I feel it applied originally to the Montagnais experience of the novelty of wooden ships, that the French were ?wood-ship-people?, not ?dugout canoe people?. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx From arem8 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:40:55 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:40:55 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: From: "David Costa" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Missouri Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2004, 8:36 am >And does 8ic8es mean 'bark'? It's an archaic morpheme that's not attested in modern Miami, so I'm not positive what it means. But it's not the basic word for 'bark'. Judging from Gravier's Illinois form <8ic8essimingi> 'bouleau arbre' ('-imingi' = is a morpheme meaning 'tree'), it probably means 'birch', so <8ic8es mis8ri> and its alternate <8ic8essi> would actually mean 'BIRCH boat'. MM: Yes, it indeed means ?birch bark?. This term is actually something I?ve known for a long time through Ojibwa, because of a childhood fascination with birch bark canoes, which to me were exquisite. So, I knew about this term many years before I saw the Illinois cognate in the Illinois-French (?Gravier?) dictionary. In Ojibwa its /wigwa:ss/ ?birch bark and birch tree?. The Miami-Illinois term written <8ic8es> and <8ic8essi> by ?Gravier? is /wiikweehsi/ ?birch bark?. But yes, as Dave notes, the term is not in modern Miami. The only indirect mention I know of it is in Jacob Dunn?s recordings of the language where he gives the common term for ?canoe? and then follows it with a statement to the effect ?this is not a birchbark canoe?. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ? and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 15:45:10 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:45:10 -0600 Subject: Missouri, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael McCafferty wrote: > MM: I follow Lounsbury?s in dealing with native place names, and nothing > I read in the earlier descriptions of ?Missouri? satisfied Lounsbury?s > requirements for **historical and linguistic accuracy**. Those are laudable and necessary guidelines for drawing etymological conclusions--too often honored in the breach, by me, too, I'm afraid--but adherence to them shouldn't discourage researchers from making hypotheses in laying the groundwork. It's been a long time since Geology 101, but I try to bear in mind Chamberlain's method of multiple working hypotheses. Alan H. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 17:16:17 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:16:17 -0800 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > while wic^ha does have that "definite object" > inflectional role, wic^ha and wa also act as a pair in the area of > "indefinite objects," with wic^ha covering the human cases, and wa the > rest. This is my impression too, although the semantic range of wa- also covers animals, and the question of whether wa- has to do with definiteness, or rather with specificity or referentiality, still needs detailed investigation, at least to me. > if, as I have always assumed, wic^ha is a Dakotan > innovation, replacing some uses of wa, then maybe this would account for > any residual exceptional uses of wa preserved lexically in Dakotan? This is the solution that would take care of the more exceptional and potentially troublesome cases of the use of wa- in LAkota, with respetc to both multiple wa- and animate wa-. For "inconvenient" appearances of multiple wa-, maybe together with seemingly coreferential full NPs, as in some of my earlier examples, we could argue then that at least one of the wa-s is fossilized in such a way that it has become part of the lexical root and has lost its individual meaning. > A question this immediately raises, is whether examples in texts or other > data suggest that the range of uses of wic^ha has been expanding > historically at the expense of wa? Is thi'wic^hakte - as a particular > example of wic^ha use - replacing thi'wakte in nominalizations or > indefinite object cases? If so, we'd probably expect wa in older examples > where today we find wic^ha. In other words, the general (and still hypothetical) picture is this: wicha- is intruding the domain of non-specific object coding as a specialized marker for non-specific animate object. At an earlier stage in the development of Lakota, non-specific object coding might have been "monopolized" by wa-, which means that the semantic range of wa- might must have covered both animate and inanimate non-specific objects back then. Today the animate usage of wa- is, by and large, obsolete, and merely survives in marginal forms such as w-okiye 'to help people'. In most contexts, non-specific animate objects are now coded by wicha-. I'd fully subscribe to this analysis -- I'd even like to take the argumentation one step further. Over the holidays, I took a close look at the wa-section in Buechel,and the results are quite interesting. So far, we have mainly discussed uses of wa- as a transitive object marker, but obviously, at least in the fixed lexical expressions I found in Buechel, wa- often occurs with intransitive bases as well in LAkota. Within these lexical expressions -- and that's the crucial point -- the frequency of unequivocally ANIMATE wa- is higher than I expected. Here are some examples (Constantine has just posted a much more complete list): wa-kaN-ka 'old woman' < kaN 'old', -ka 'kind of' wa-khaNyez^a 'child' < khaNyez^a 'child' wa-hu-topa 'quadruped' < hu 'leg', topa 'four' wa-hu-nuNpa 'biped' < hu 'leg', nuNpa 'two' wa-mni-tu 'large marine animal (such as whale, shark, octopus)' < mni 'water', -tu 'LOC' Maybe there is an alternative, but as far as I can tell at the moment, wa- in the above examples has to be analyzed as referring to the subject of the intransitive lexical roots in question. Such as: wa-hu-nuNpa 'biped' = 'two-legged thing/being, thing/being that is two-legged'. But if this analysis is correct, and we are dealing with established lexical items here, i.e. items that have been around for a pretty long time, such fossilized uses of wa- with animate reference could point to an earlier stage in the development of Lakota wa- in which this element was totally productive with animate reference. In the meantime, I have tried to elicit additional combinations of intransitive bases with wa-, both for animate and inanimate contexts, but the output is not very encouraging. I.e., intransitive wa- is not very productive these days. The question that has to be raised at this point is: is intransitive wa- too new to be productive or is it too old to be productive? There is some evidence that seems to support the second option. First, my speaker gave me the forms wa-luta 'ceremonial flag' < luta 'red' wa-suta 'seeded, like corn' < suta 'hard' and she feels that these are "old words". Further, the lexical items wa-ks^ica 'bowl' wa-h^pe 'leaf' are based on intransitive roots which appear to be obsolete today (at least they are not in Buechel), but they are phonetically and semantically akin to the following roots, which can be found in Buechel: ks^iz^a 'bent' and ks^iks^aN 'crooked', as well as h^payA 'to fall'. On this basis, wa-ks^ica 'bowl' could be analyzed as 'thing that is bowl-shaped' or so, and wa-h^pe 'leaf' could be analyzed (very tentatively of course) as 'thing that fell (off the tree)'. If the lexemes wa-ks^ica 'bowl' and wa-h^pe 'leaf' were created at a time when the now obsolete roots were still in use, the wa- that is part of the package has the same age. Remember that this type of wa- has intransitive reference. As I said above, in my data (the texts I collected, elicitation, plus Buechel, so far), animate readings of wa- appear mostly in the context of intransitive wa-. If there is something to this tendency of coupling animate wa- with intransitive wa-, then we can conclude, in keeping with John! 's and Bob's view, that animate wa- is of the same age as intransitive wa-, i.e. something that has been fragmentarily inherited from an earlier stage in the history of Lakota and survives exclusively (?) in fossilized forms. Q. E. D., or maybe not... We'd need much more (cross-Siouan?) evidence to fully substantiate this. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Sat Jan 3 17:18:25 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:18:25 -0800 Subject: double inflection (Re: animate wa-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > We might find some "newer" pattern uses in > older materials, too, or at least this is the case in Omaha-Ponca for > other innovations: modern day uses tend to occur sporadically in earlier > materials, too. An example would be the modern practice of inflecting > daNbe 'to see' doubly as attaN'be 'I ...', dhas^taN'be 'you ...'. Mostly > Dorsey reports ttaN'be, s^taNbe, but a few speakers in his day were using > the "modern" forms. Double inflection of this type is extremely marginal in Lakota -- right now only one verb comes to my mind that behaves like the OP forms, i.e. iNyaNkA 'to run'. In the Boas/Deloria materials, and also in Buechel 1971, this verb is quoted as having wa-'iNmnaNkA for first person singular, which also is the standard Rosebud form today. My Rosebud speaker (about 80 years old) mentioned that Pine Ridge uses the (simplified, regularized) form wa-'iNyaNkA instead. My Pine Ridge speaker (about the same age) has confirmed this form, adding that in the 1930s, Pine Ridge had wa-'iNblaNkA for 'I run'. One way of dealing with this is by hypothesizing that Lakota has moved beyond an earlier (pan-Siouan??) stage of using double inflection with many verbs to a point where erstwhile doubly inflecting paradigms have been completely regularized by eliminating the irregular (or let's say, less regular) part of the inflection, i.e. -mn-/-bl- in the case of wa-'iNmnaNkA/wa-'iNblaNkA, retaining o! nly the canonical wa- '1SG.AG' marker. So that the Pine Ridge state of affairs represents the most innovative stage in the overall development. From my work on Osage on the basis of the LeFlesche materials I remember that this language has/had a lot of doubly inflecting verbs. I can't imagine that individual Siouan languages have "invented" double inflection independently from each other. OP double inflection patterns would then occupy the centerpiece of the cycle, while structures like OP ttaNb'e 'I see' would be the historical point of departure. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Jan 3 18:09:02 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:09:02 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hello all, I'd like to first introduce myself here in this illustrious circle of linguistic experts to which Mr. Koontz kindly has given me permission to tread in and lurk around in order to benefit from your knowledge. I'm not a linguist of profession myself but dealing with quite a couple of languages lifelong. Since about 20 years, I've been interested also in Lakota, with moderate success, though, because of hardly having had the materials necessary, then, and sufficient spare time left for this hobby. Since about one year, the problem of learning materials lacking meanwhile is solved, so I only will have to be patient with waiting still a few more years for really having also the time... So please allow me to partake as a moreorless silent reader and also to ask you questions now and then (and take this very opportunity here to test whether or not the posting to the list will work). Alfred A.W. T?ting http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de Hello, Kostya, interesting query on the use of _wicha_/_wa_! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From napshawin at msn.com Sat Jan 3 19:36:59 2004 From: napshawin at msn.com (CATCHES VIOLET) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:36:59 -0600 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' Message-ID: Iyopxeya-to trade or exchange goods or to sell something iyopxeya-to admonish another or to whip with words (exaggeration) wiyopxeye-to sell something not trade, but to sell to get money vs iyopxeye to exchange goods. supposedly, according to our grandparents most words had two or three meanings and we have to know how to use them, so when they sound the same we should be able to distinguish as above... hope that helps violet, miye >From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object' >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:26:44 -0000 > >While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the >fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and >wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a >coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? >Bruce > _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:12:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:12:49 -0700 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois > root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four segments. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:27:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:27:29 -0700 Subject: Missouri, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Michael McCafferty wrote: > >1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does > >anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? > > Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ > (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy > River'; compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', > and /pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy/ 'muddy river, Missouri river'. I should have pointed out that this is a calque (or vice versa) of Siouan names for the river, cf. OP niN s^ude (and so on in other Siouan languages) 'smoky (turbid) water'. > MM: The first recording of an Algonquian name for the Missouri River was > done on either June 25 or June 26, 1673, by Jacques Marquette during his > stopover at the Peoria village on the Des Moines River. We can see the > hydronym that the Peoria, a Miami-Illinois-speaking tribe, gave him on > his holograph map of the Mississippi. Marquette wrote (8 = > the sound /w/). ... From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Jan 3 21:26:40 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:26:40 -0600 Subject: Missouri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: >>Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois >>root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. > > > Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four > segments. The English words wigwam (< Abenaki) and wickiup (< Fox) come from the root *wi:k- 'dwell, house', as perhaps do the Algonquian words for birchbark and basswood (Eng. wicopy). Alan H. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 21:50:18 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:50:18 -0800 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: Yeah, as Alan pointed out, the PA root */wi:k-/ 'dwell' is also present in PA */wi:kiwa:Hmi/ 'house, wigwam'. English 'wigwam' looks like the Abenaki reflex of that PA word, /wigw?m/. 'Wickiup' is the Kickapoo/Fox form of the same etymon, as in Fox /wi:kiya:pi/. 'Wetu', which is sometimes used in English to describe the houses the people of southern New England made, is also the same etymon, probably phonemic Massachusett /wity at w/ ('@' = schwa). It also appears in verbs, as in Miami /wiikici/, Menominee /we:kew/, and Cree /wi:kiw/ 'he dwells'. However, as a final and a dependent noun it's plain /-i:k-/, as in */ni:ki/ 'my lodge, my house', */ki:ki/ 'your lodge, your house'. Thanks for your patience with the non-Siouan digressions. :-) Dave >> Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois root >> <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. > Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four > segments. > JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:58:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:58:01 -0700 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: <3FF57FA4.19599.A64483@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the > fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and > wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a > coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? I'd be surprised if they weren't connected. If you think of selling (or buying) as bargaining, especially in a barter-system, then "product disparagement," alternating with some disparagement of the emptor (or anti-vendor), is the essence of thing. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 21:59:47 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:59:47 -0700 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: <3FF58083.3101.A9AC76@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Yes the use of wa- meaning 'around' could be the explanation of > wawinyanka 'womanizer= sleeping around'. ?........ Not seriously The only alternative seems to be 'he woman-lies for it (unspecified)'. JEK From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sat Jan 3 21:59:34 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:59:34 -0800 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: >>> 1. The earliest French name for the Missouri River is Pekitanoui. Does >>> anyone know where that comes from or what it means? Is it Algonquian? >> Yes. Note Fox /pi:kihtanwi/ 'Missouri River' and Menominee /pe:ke?tanoh/ >> (loc.) 'on or at the Missouri River'. The term appears to mean 'Muddy River'; >> compare Plains Cree /pi:kan/ & /pi:ka:kamiw/ 'it is turbid, muddy', and >> /pi:kano(:wi)-si:piy/ 'muddy river, Missouri river'. > MM: The first recording of an Algonquian name for the Missouri River was done > on either June 25 or June 26, 1673, by Jacques Marquette during his stopover > at the Peoria village on the Des Moines River. We can see the hydronym that > the Peoria, a Miami-Illinois-speaking tribe, gave him on his holograph map of > the Mississippi. Marquette wrote (8 = the sound /w/). This is > Miami-Illinois /peekihtanwi/, a third-person inanimate intransitive conjunct > verb that has undergone initial change (/piik-/ > /peek-/ ). Yes, and also Gravier's Illinois 'eau borbeuse. Riviere Mis8ri'. Though one big problem with a Miami-Illinois /peekihtanwi/ is that it should NOT have undergone initial change, since it's an independent verb. It 'should' be */piikihtanwi/. Dave From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 22:03:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:03:25 -0700 Subject: Mandan re-redux In-Reply-To: <3FF58B2A.109@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > Koontz John E wrote: > > > The element here is *maNh-a 'earth, mud, muddy, miry', cf. Dakhota maNkha > > (maNh-ka) 'earth', OP maNa' 'bank', (s^u'de)maNha 'fog' (riverbank smoke), > > Ks maNha' 'land', Os niN'maNhaN 'marsh', IO maN'ha 'earth, muddy', Wi > > maNaNha' 'mud, be muddy'. > > Any chance this is part of Mandan maNta 'Missouri River'? It doesn't seem impossible, given that "muddy" seems to be the basis of other names for the stream, but I'd have to (a) review what we said about this before and (b) see if there's anything plausible to account for -(Ca)ta(N). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 3 22:10:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:10:46 -0700 Subject: birch (was Missouri) In-Reply-To: <3FF60DF9.3010603@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > I think it means 'birchbark' in the Algonquian languages. Gravier gives > 8ic8essi 'canot d'ecorce, item ecorce de boul[e]au' ('bark-canoe, also > birchbark'), and 8ic8essimingi is thus best translated as 'birchbark > tree' rather than 'birch-tree tree'. The fact that Gravier glosses it as > 'bouleau arbre' ('birch-tree') doesn't mean that 8ic8essi means "plain > birch" in Illinois. > > An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya > 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- > 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. If Illinois 8ic8essi really meant > 'birch-tree', then -imingi would be redundant. In English trees that have some significant product have that product named, and then the tree is the "(product) tree," as in apple : apple tree, though, of course, you can also refer to the tree as an "apple" with "tree" omitted, just to complicate matters. The same thing seems to occur in Omaha-Ponca, where s^e 's 'apple', and the tree is s^ehi 'apple tree.' Similarly, corn vs. corn plant vs. corn (collective). JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 02:32:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:32:19 -0700 Subject: Missouria, Grandmothers (Re: Historical questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The Omaha word for the Missouria given in Fletcher and > La Flesche is Niu'tachi, which they translate as > "those who came floating down dead". > > ni - 'water' > u- 'in' > t?e - 'dead', 'die' > > ni-u'-t?e - 'die in water', 'drown' > > I don't recognize /(a)chi/, but I gather that that's the > 'came floating down' part. Perhaps 'grandmother speech' > for athi', 'have arrived here' ? IO has regular affrication of dentals before front vowels, and the aspirates show up as voiced, so the cognate of OP thi(i) 'arrive here' (usually with a- prefixed in Dhegiha), from Proto-Siouan *thi, is j^i(i). There is also palatalization of n (to ny) in the same context. Because of the prevalence of V1V2 contractions to V2 - typical of MVS languages - you can find apparent exceptions to these rules, e.g., ut?aj^i (< iut?aj^i) or thiN (< tha(N)iN). In effect, all IO speakers use "grandmother speech." Of course, Francis LaFlesche, one of Dorsey's regular sources, actually had an Ioway grandmother, so there's a certain logic in this. I think, however, that we have enough instances of "grandmother speech" or "baby talk" from other sources that we can assert that this is coincidental. The basis of the "Ioway grandmother" observation is that Joseph LaFlesche's senior wife "Hinnuagsnun" 'The One Woman' (HiNnu 'eldest daughter' + ??? + snuN 'only' (?)), usually called Mary Gale, was part Ioway and her mother Nicomi (N(y)ihku is 'salt' and miN is 'woman', but this is a bald guess) actually was Ioway (with an Omaha mother). Francis's own mother was the second wife, "Ta-in-ne" (probably [MiN]TtaiNdhiN 'the (moving) visible (=new) [moon]') a/k/a Elizabeth Esau, an Omaha woman. I'm ignorant of how the kinship terminology works in polygynous marriages where the mothers aren't classificatory sisters, so I'm not positive, but I assume that the LaFlesche children could all call Nicomi grandmother. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Jan 4 02:45:23 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:45:23 -0600 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: >>4. Tabeau, probably writing around 1806 if understand correctly, mentions a >>"rivierre des mohens" several times. The editor says this is probably the >>Des >>Moines, . . . Could mohen simply be an alternate spelling for the old >>(river of the) Maha? > > > MM: No. This is simply an English speaker?s attempt to write the French term > ?riviere des moines?. * The etymology of Des Moines has long been disuputed, but the best bet is * from the new dictionary of Native American placenames that Bill Bright is * editing (with the questionable help of several of us on the list). To make sure it's clear here, my question wasn't about the 'River of the Mahas' being the origin of the name of the Des Moines river. I was asking about the Big Sioux. I'm looking at an English translation of Tabeau's French, and "rivierre des mohens" is a footnote's quote of the original French. The first mention of it in the text is: Another tribe of Yinctons now located on the River James, accustomed to the beaver hunt, who hunted them extensively on the branches of the River of the Mohens, also scoured the east bank of the Missouri and made only a very ordinary catch in 1803. The footnote to "River of the Mohens" reads: (35) rivierre des mohens in original. Probably the Des Moines, of which a variant was Riviere de Moyen. ... The Des Moines river is mentioned under that name elsewhere in the text, without commenting on the name, so I assume that Tabeau was using the term "rivierre des moines" in these instances. The "rivierre des mohens" is referred to several times, generally in conjunction with the James, the Missouri, and the Minnesota rivers. I've scanned over the numerous river names listed in the index, and have not found any of them that obviously refer to the Big Sioux, unless it is the rivierre des mohens. The French maps from the early 18th century do, I believe, refer to the Big Sioux as the R. des Mahas. I was wondering if Tabeau's "mohens" might not be a variant of earlier French "Mahas", and if the river he refers to as "rivierre des mohens" might not be referring to the Big Sioux rather than to the Des Moines. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 03:36:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:36:55 -0700 Subject: Ioway-Otoe-Missouria Dialects (Re: Historical questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > 5. How long have the Iowa and Oto been separate tribes? For a long time the Ioway have been identified with the Orr Focus of Oneota. This identification was made with the "direct historical" approach by the late Mildred Mott Wedel in a paper published in 1938 when she was still just Mildred Mott. For Oneota bibliography see http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/oneota/mar10.htm and http://www.uwlax.edu/mvac/PastCultures/Oneota/Continunitypg/contbibliography.htm. I think that the the original focuses of Oneota have been so thoroughly reworked in the last decade or so that it is risky to use the older focus names, but I believe Mott thought of Orr in terms of a limited set of sites in NE Iowa. More recently Clark Dobbs (dissertation, 1984) has suggested that the Correctionville-Blue Earth Phase might be Otoe. Unfortunately, CBE is like Orr in that it was originally conceived in terms of localized materials (actually two localities, Correctionville and the Blue Earth Valley), and then snowballed to include materials from all across the Midwest. I think that Orr and CBE are both ripe for reanalysis, and may have been divided up extensively since I last had some grasp of the literature on Oneota. The site of the Misouria settlement on the Missouri is well known and the archeology of that general area has been assigned to the Chariton River Group Continuity (Dale Henning 1970), if I recall the details correctly. This term was motivated by the circumstance that Oneota materials in this area are unusually mixed, or at least seemed to be given the state of analysis in 1970. The Little Osage were in the same area at the same time, of course, and we have numerous historical instances of multiethnic settlements in the Midwest. If these associations all have merit, then the Ioway, Otoe, and Missouria have been ethnically distinct for 700 years plus. Of course, there are scenarioes whereby this could be coupled with a degree of linguistic uniformity, but suspect that we simply are far from understanding how to connect the various attested "Chiwere" groups to their archeological roots. What does seem to be clear is that the three groups were quite distinct at contact, with no ethnohistorical reports that I am aware of regarding earlier unity, except those that refer to other Siouan groups, too. They're also rather widely distributed across Iowa/Missouri/Nebraska. > As I understand, the two languages are hardly more > than dialects of each other. The evidence on this has not yet been thoroughly assessed, unfortunately. Jimm Good Tracks knows more about it than anyone else. Almost all of the information collected on IOM a/k/a Chiwere, has been collected since the historical mergers of the three groups began, and most of that since the three were effectively a single community, which must have had some degree of leveling influence. Subject to that observation Chiwere is apparently less diverse than Dakotan or Dhegiha, but has much more internal variation than Winnebago. The main differences people have pointed out are lexical - including some male/female particles. Jimm has mentioned these. Particles, including male/female "modal" particles and conjunctions, often vary rather saliently between different dialects of Siouan languages. This is notably the case in Dakotan and Dhegiha. The well known Chiwere shift of s/s^/x to /s/x is a complicating factor. It's been going on since before contact, and is still not complete. It seems to crosscut the three communities, but may have proceded at different rates in each. > Some Omaha traditions > seem to hold that they were together with both of > them, and the Winnebago as well, when they were > living on the Big Sioux. When the Omaha moved west > to the mouth of the White River on the Missouri, the > Iowa and Oto were still with them, though the > Winnebago were no longer heard from. After moving > back down the Missouri to northeastern Nebraska, the > Iowa were still near the Omaha, living at Aowa Creek > while the Omaha were at Bow Creek. But the Oto were > already living down by Omaha (city) and the lower > Platte by 1718 (according to a French map), and joined > with the Pawnee in the massacre of the Villasur > expedition in 1720. The Iowa moved down to join the > Oto on the other side of the Missouri at Council Bluffs > sometime prior to 1758, when the French Governor > Kerlerec described the tribes of the Missouri. They > later moved east to the mouth of the Des Moines > between 1765 and 1768 at the invitation of the traders > of St. Louis to meet them there. How does this all > compare to the Iowa and Oto traditions of their early > history? And how about the Winnebago? Is there any > reason to believe they were west of the Mississippi > prior to 1700? I think the various folk accounts of the early Dhegiha movements, sometimes grafted onto other stories to produce general accounts of MVS history (sans the Dakota) are simply myth making based on mixtures of linguistic and place name analysis. I think most elements in the stories emerged in the 1800s. Apart from that I've noticed that Ioway ethnohistory of their movements accords rather well with early historical accounts, though there's a tendency to consider the ethnohistory to refer to a much greater time depth. Over the same period the Otoe and Missouria were more or less immobile, barring the Missouria's misfortunes and their fusion with the Otoe. The Winnebago seem to be in Wisconsin from contact until the US began its efforts to move them west, efforts notoriously only partially successful. It does seem clear that the Omaha and Ponca split from a single entity, perhaps even within the period of nominal contact, and that the Omaha(-Ponca?) moved into Nebraska from NW Iowa within that period, in other words, just before 1700 or so. I'm sorry if these remarks are so fuzzy as to be useless! Not all of the fuzziness comes from mostly putting them together from memory. The archaeologists and ethnohistorians are fairly confused and uncertain themselves. I certainly recommend pouring over the Northeastern and Plains volumes of HNAI. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 04:44:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:44:29 -0700 Subject: Historical questions In-Reply-To: <009201c3d1c2$064fa790$cc430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > In this sampling of names above (there are more), the only non-Ioway/ > Otoe rendering is in the word "xaN'she" (big; great). NOTE: Ioway: > xaN'nye ~ xaNn~e; Otoe: xaN'je. I have rendered the word as given by > Dorsey, i.e., xaN'she; however, I have since wondered if it is correct. > Some of Dorsey's IOM narrative transcriptions use the letter "s" to > denote theta sound, as in: thi (foot) would be written as "si". Then > he proceeds to write the phoneme "s" as "sh" and does not seem to note > instances of the phoneme "sh". He also neglects other features, such as > glottal stops, etc. My question now is if the the word for Missouria > "big; great" is indeed: xaN'she (OR) xaN'se? I suspect that if Dorsey wrote s and s^ where we expect theta and s, it's because the speakers he dealt with still used something he considered to be s and s^. Since modern theta and s come from earlier s and s^, respectively, might we not expect some variations like this in the past? Of course, I see in the 'sand' term (see below) that at least some of these s^ forms are where we expect historical s (or z). > We tha a Missourie > Hospatallity This is the wethea ~ withia form mentioned. Behind a name glossed "Hospitality" (Amen on L&C's spelling, Jimm) I'd expect some meaning like 'he spares them', i.e., 'he spares a visiting foreigner's life by feeding him, making him a sponsored guest immune to mistreatment'. The attested form for this in IO is uda=hi (a causative). I don't see how that would work. One possible OP version of this, however, is dha?e=dhe (a causative) 'to pity'. The noun is wadha?e=dhe 'pity'. I wonder if perhaps the translator - and I know some of them were Omahas - didn't substitute the Omaha form of the word for the original. Or maybe the Missouria speaker was speaking in Omaha anyway? This is a uniquely Omaha-Ponca form, as the Osage is dhak?e=dhe and the underlying k? or x? would also survive in IOM. In fact, if "a a" is V?V, this form has to be Omaha-Ponca, which is the main Siouan language with a really obtrusive intervocalic glottal stop (from *k? and *x?) As Jimm observes, ia is not a very likely final sequence in Siouan languages. > Au-ho-ning ga M Presumably ahuniNge 'he lacks a wing'? > Au-ho-ne-ga Miss. Idem! > I am not familiar with the above term. Pawnee in IOM is: PaNYi; Arickara/ > Aricakaree is: PaNyi Busa ~ Butha (Sand Pawnee: I haven't a clue for > the term). OP normally has ppa(a)dhiN ppi(i)za 'sand Caddoan' for the Arikara. Any ppa(a)dhiN (u)maNhaN in this context would be descriptive, though I seem to recall somebody somewhere suggesting a particular connection of the Skiri and the Arikara. We recently commented on the near homophony of bi(i)'ze 'dry' and ppi(i)'za 'sand'. In both words the i is from *u. IOM has budhe ~ busa (older, because s for dh, and a-ablaut) 'dry' and busa ~ butha (Dorsey pusha) 'sand'. Based on the Dhegiha forms I'd expect budhe (earlier buze) and *phudhe (earlier phuz^e). Since we have b in most of the IOM 'sand' forms, I suspect interference from 'dry'. IOM source spelling may have bdj^g and/or ptc^k for the unaspirated stops, but it only has ptc^k (and/or ph th c^h kh) for the aspirates, not bdj^g. Here I mean "contemporary aspirates." Confusingly, the "historical" aspirates of Proto-Siouan (*ph, *th, *kh) become b d ~ j^ and g in IOM. 'Sand' has *hp, no *ph. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 05:58:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:58:37 -0700 Subject: double inflection (Re: animate wa-) In-Reply-To: <20040103171825.67864.qmail@web40002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > Double inflection of this type is extremely marginal in Lakota -- right > now only one verb comes to my mind that behaves like the OP forms, i.e. > iNyaNkA 'to run'. In the Boas/Deloria materials, and also in Buechel > 1971, this verb is quoted as having wa-'iNmnaNkA for first person > singular, which also is the standard Rosebud form today. My Rosebud > speaker (about 80 years old) mentioned that Pine Ridge uses the > (simplified, regularized) form wa-'iNyaNkA instead. My Pine Ridge > speaker (about the same age) has confirmed this form, adding that in the > 1930s, Pine Ridge had wa-'iNblaNkA for 'I run'. There are essentially two kinds of double inflection in Siouan languages. One (1) occurs when multiple elements of a stem are inflected, which is the case with Dakotan i=yaNka in its full conservative glory. Another example of this type is (or was) hiyu, which is in Buechel as wahibu, yahilu, (hiyu). I think I've seen it given as wahiyu, yahiyu, hiyu in modern, or at least Pine Ridge form. Riggs gives wahibu ~ hibu and yahidu ~ hidu, showing an alternative pattern of simplification. I apologize if I managed to day that such formations are frequent. I only meant to say that they occur sporadically - perhaps enough to provide an example. Dhegiha languages abound (relatively) in double inflections of this first sort, some lexical, e.g., OP gaN=dha 'to want' (kkaN'=bdha A1, s^kaN'=(s^)na A2, gaN'=dha=i A3, aNgaN=dha=i A12) and others grammatical, e.g., =xti added to another verb requires the following supporting auxiliary =maN 'I really ...', =z^aN 'you really ...'. There are also a lot of compound motion verbs (comparable to hiyu) that are inflected on both elements. The other kind of double inflection (2.1) occurs when two pronominals, usually regular + irregular, occur in sequence on a single stem, as in OP a-t-taNbe 'I see it', etc., or Osage a-p-paN 'I call', dha-s^-paN 'you call', etc. This last is cited in LaFlesche, but I believe Carolyn told me it is singly inflected regular today (a-paN, dha-paN, ...). This pattern is much more sporadic in Siouan than the "two elements separately inflected" pattern, but does occur sporadically. IOM has a lot of it with r-stems, I believe, to the extent where it is almost the regular pattern: ha-da- A1, ra-s-ra- A2, ra- A3, and so on. A second varient (2.2) on this second kind of double inflection occurs when the portmanteau for A1P2 is used regularly with the irregular (or syncopating) A1 form, as in OP wi-b-dha- A1P2-A1-by_mouth. Lakota does this with c^hi, e.g., c^hi-b-la-, right? In this case the context is paradigmatically very limited, but also very common in terms of lexical frequency. A third version (2.3) of this occurs with datives and suus forms of syncopating verbs in OP, where you can get sequences in which both the dative prefix and the underlying stem are inflected, if the underlying stem is syncopating: eppaghe < a-(g)i-p-gaghe 'I made it for him' A1-DAT-A1-make, etc.; agippaghe < a-gi-p-gaghe 'I made it for myself' A1-SUUS-A1-make, etc. > One way of dealing with this is by hypothesizing that Lakota has moved > beyond an earlier (pan-Siouan??) stage of using double inflection with > many verbs to a point where erstwhile doubly inflecting paradigms have > been completely regularized by eliminating the irregular (or let's say, > less regular) part of the inflection, i.e. -mn-/-bl- in the case of > wa-'iNmnaNkA/wa-'iNblaNkA, retaining only the canonical wa- '1SG.AG' > marker. Which is essentially what has happened with Osage paN, and I'd argue that double inflection in OP daNbe and Os paN is a sort of route to regularization - first bury the irregularity and then forget it. And the two inflected pieces can work the same way, as these Lakota data show, though presumably here the double inflection is original. > ... I can't imagine that individual Siouan languages have "invented" > double inflection independently from each other. OP double inflection > patterns would then occupy the centerpiece of the cycle, while > structures like OP ttaNb'e 'I see' would be the historical point of > departure. I agree with this in general terms, but I think that particular cases of double inflection of the first type are continually recreated via different sorts of serial verb construction. The system that creates the forms is inherited, but the particular examples aren't always. Still, hi=yu matches a pattern of motion verb compound that OP has, though it seems not to have the corresponding *thi=(dh)i, but only thi=dha and thi=dhadha, matching hi=yaya (which can only occur reduplicated). (I believe hi=yaya is still doubly, actually triply, inflected in modern Lakota, right?) The second sort of pattern (or at least 2.1) comes about entirely secondarily, as a kind of regularization. Versions 2.2 and 2.3 are a bit harder to characterize. We might call them something like overgeneralization. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 4 08:17:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:17:31 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <20040103171617.33249.qmail@web40003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > This is my impression too, although the semantic range of wa- also > covers animals, and the question of whether wa- has to do with > definiteness, or rather with specificity or referentiality, still needs > detailed investigation, at least to me. After making my suggestion on the distribution of wa and wic^ha in "nonspecific object" use in order to ask Regina if this was what she was suggesting I rediscovered the place where Regina had earlier said as much. I think that Linda was saying she found things to be essentially similar in Assiniboine, though there were also problematic examples with wa where one might expect wic^ha. I agree that the issue of whether wic^ha ~ wa in these contexts indicates indefiniteness or nonreferentiality or nonspecificity or object deletion is one that remains to be resolved, though nonspecificity looks like the best bet to me. The answer might depend on the speech community in question. > In other words, the general (and still hypothetical) picture is this: > wicha- is intruding the domain of non-specific object coding as a > specialized marker for non-specific animate object. At an earlier stage > in the development of Lakota, non-specific object coding might have been > "monopolized" by wa-, which means that the semantic range of wa- might > must have covered both animate and inanimate non-specific objects back > then. Today the animate usage of wa- is, by and large, obsolete, and > merely survives in marginal forms such as w-okiye 'to help people'. In > most contexts, non-specific animate objects are now coded by wicha-. I'd > fully subscribe to this analysis -- I'd even like to take the > argumentation one step further. In effect, animate third person plural objects in transitive paradigms are a special case of non-specific object in MVS languages - non-specific objects used to code animate specific plural objects - and these were evidently among the original wa forms to be replaced by wic^ha-forms in Dakotan. Historical dicitonary data also show lexicalized cases of wic^ha where an animate non-specific object is meant, along with more numerous cases of wa in the same capacity. Contemporary Lakota speakers seem to prefer wic^ha in this capacity in productive verbal uses. We're not sure how long that's been going on. (Obviously, texts might clarify this within the last 100 years or so.) Contemporary speakers still have at least some older forms, presumably lexicalized, in which wa occurs for a non-specific animate reference. I'll bet there aren't actually many cases where a form listed in Riggs or Buechel with animate non-specific wa now substitutes wic^ha. Constantine's query re. wawiyuNg^api 'inquiry' vs. wiwic^hayuNg^api 'questions' may be an example, though, of course, this is actually listed in Buechel. There might be also be cases in which a new form using wic^ha with one stem replaces an old form with a different stem that uses wa. > Over the holidays, I took a close look at the wa-section in Buechel, and > the results are quite interesting. So far, we have mainly discussed uses > of wa- as a transitive object marker, but obviously, at least in the > fixed lexical expressions I found in Buechel, wa- often occurs with > intransitive bases as well in LAkota. Within these lexical expressions > -- and that's the crucial point -- the frequency of unequivocally > ANIMATE wa- is higher than I expected. Here are some examples > (Constantine has just posted a much more complete list): > > wa-kaN-ka 'old woman' < kaN 'old', -ka 'kind of' > ... This is more or less in line with wic^ha not occurring as the third person plural marker with statives, isn't it? Of course, once wic^ha occurs as an animate non-specific object it might occur more generally as an animate non-specific patient. Forms like wic^ha'xwa 'drowsiness' (maxwa' 'I am drowsy') (cited by Constantine) seem to be of that nature. > Maybe there is an alternative, but as far as I can tell at the moment, > wa- in the above examples has to be analyzed as referring to the subject > of the intransitive lexical roots in question. ... if this analysis is > correct, and we are dealing with established lexical items here, i.e. > items that have been around for a pretty long time, such fossilized uses > of wa- with animate reference could point to an earlier stage in the > development of Lakota wa- in which this element was totally productive > with animate reference. I'd agree with this. Moreover, such wa + stative forms occur in other Siouan languages as well. They might be parallel evolution, but I doubt it. Examples, OP wasa'be 'black bear' = 'the one that is black', Wi wakhaN 'snake' = (?) 'the one that is mysterious', etc. It is true that these forms aren't especially numerous in Wi, where the general preference seems to be waz^aN 'something' + stative, e.g., waz^aNzi 'lemon, orange'. Or the examples in Wi add -ge (analogous to -ka in wakaNka 'old woman'), e.g., waxoxge 'cowrie shell', waj^uNsge 'crayfish'. On the other hand, wa + stative i still reasonably productive in OP, e.g. waz^i'de 'tomato ketchup' < z^i'de 'red'. I notice that wa is often used with nouns as a sort of indefinite possessor or whole-namer (as in part of whole), e.g., OP wathaNzi 'cornstalk', wathaN 'squash', wahaba 'corn ear', wamide 'seed', wamuske 'bread', waxiNha 'cloth', wahi 'leg', was^iN 'fat', wamiN 'blood', wanaNghe 'ghost'. (In Wi wic^aNwas 'corn(plant)', wic^aNwaN 'squash', waha 'fur', wahiNsaN 'down feathers', waniN 'meat', wakere 'faeces', waroic^ 'intestines'.) These are like the possessor cases of wic^ha that Constantine left out for consistancy, though he left some in, I think, e.g., wic^haatkuku, wic^hahuNkake, wic^hac^hepa, ... These are analogous to the well known cases of animal body-part possession compounds (cf. Boas & Deloria 1941:70, e.g., wic^hachaNte 'human heart', thaphi 'ruminant liver', etc., which, of course, have their analogs in OP, e.g., ttez^ega 'buffalo thigh', ttenaNde 'buffalo heart', etc. > In the meantime, I have tried to elicit additional combinations of > intransitive bases with wa-, both for animate and inanimate contexts, > but the output is not very encouraging. I.e., intransitive wa- is not > very productive these days. ... > As I said above, in my data (the texts I collected, elicitation, plus > Buechel, so far), animate readings of wa- appear mostly in the context > of intransitive wa-. If there is something to this tendency of coupling > animate wa- with intransitive wa-, then we can conclude, in keeping with > John's and Bob's view, that animate wa- is of the same age as > intransitive wa-, i.e. something that has been fragmentarily inherited > from an earlier stage in the history of Lakota and survives exclusively > (?) in fossilized forms. Actually, that seems like a reasonably good argument, though I'm not sure if it's true that the majority of animate non-specific wa's occur with stative stems, based on the examples Constantine offered. It may well be that the majority of instances of derivations in wa from stative stems are animate. In any event, the number of stems doesn't seem to be important to the argument, but only that this relict set contains such examples. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sun Jan 4 12:13:41 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:13:41 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry to use the List as a location agency, but is Willem DeReuse out there or does any one know his email address. I did not find the University of North Texas web site easy to use. Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sun Jan 4 12:16:19 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:16:19 -0000 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks all for the replies on postpositions Bruce From arem8 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 16:12:11 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:12:11 -0500 Subject: Missouri, etc. Message-ID: Please forgive me, but for the sake of linguistic accuracy I would like to invade the Siouan list once more and note that Ojibwa "birch bark" is actually /wi:gwa:ss/, not */wigwa:ss/, as I noted yesterday. Thanks for your patience, Michael _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx From arem8 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 16:15:39 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:15:39 -0500 Subject: Missouri Message-ID: noop. thoughts what i used to think as a kid, though. i wasn't going to drag this out on the siouan list, and also i know if i drag it out in front of dave, his first reaction (and therefore siouan list reaction) will be dismissive, but I *think* these terms have to do with the idea of enveloping. There are several entries in "Gravier" that have a similar shape. >From: Koontz John E >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Re: Missouri >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:12:49 -0700 (MST) > >On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > > Of course. But that's in the English. My point is just that the Illinois > > root <8ic8ess-> seems to mean plain 'birch'. > >Any connection with "wigwam"? I noticed the similarity in the first four >segments. > > >JEK _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work ? and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx From arem8 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 4 16:39:05 2004 From: arem8 at hotmail.com (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:39:05 -0500 Subject: birch (was Missouri) Message-ID: >From: Koontz John E >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >To: Siouan List >Subject: Re: birch (was Missouri) >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:10:46 -0700 (MST) > >On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > > I think it means 'birchbark' in the Algonquian languages. Gravier gives > > 8ic8essi 'canot d'ecorce, item ecorce de boul[e]au' ('bark-canoe, also > > birchbark'), and 8ic8essimingi is thus best translated as 'birchbark > > tree' rather than 'birch-tree tree'. The fact that Gravier glosses it as > > 'bouleau arbre' ('birch-tree') doesn't mean that 8ic8essi means "plain > > birch" in Illinois. > > > > An analogous term is the Proto-Algonquian name *wi:kopiminSya > > 'basswood', lit. 'house-bark tree' from wi:k- 'house, dwell' + -ekop- > > 'bark' + -eminSy-a- 'tree'. If Illinois 8ic8essi really meant > > 'birch-tree', then -imingi would be redundant. > >In English trees that have some significant product have that product >named, and then the tree is the "(product) tree," as in apple : apple >tree, though, of course, you can also refer to the tree as an "apple" with >"tree" omitted, just to complicate matters. The same thing seems to occur >in Omaha-Ponca, where s^e 's 'apple', and the tree is s^ehi 'apple tree.' >Similarly, corn vs. corn plant vs. corn (collective). >JEK I agree with John that that is what is happening in Illinois, that the term for "birch bark" is being extended to mean the name for the tree, and that there is an additional term for paper birch tree in Illinois (noted above). What draws me to this conclusion is that the tree's name is reconstructible in Proto-Algonquian: */wi:kwe:hsa:htekwa/, and that is composed of the reconstructed term for birch bark, *wi:kwe:hs-/ and /-a:htekwa/ 'tree'. I might add that as a curiosity, there are some names of trees in Miami-Illinois that contain two morphemes for "tree," such as /ahsenami$aahkwi/, one of three terms in the language for "maple tree," which is literally "stone-tree-tree". Michael _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sun Jan 4 17:38:48 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 09:38:48 -0800 Subject: tree tree Message-ID: Since we're still on Algonquian digressions... My favorite oddball tree name in Miami-Illinois would have to be /mihtekami$i/, which is the generic word for 'oak'. Those of you who've been reading these emails closely might have already noticed that this word literally means 'tree tree': /mihtek(w)-/ is the M-I reflex of the PA word for 'tree', and /-(e)mi$i/ is that 'tree' final again. (Only Fox/Kickapoo has a cognate: Fox /mehtekomi$i/ 'white oak'.) However, the reason for this is pretty clear, if you look around: the Miami-Illinois word for 'acorn' is /mihtekamini/, which is literally 'tree berry'. (This term is MUCH more widely attested across Algonquian.) There seems to be a morphological process whereby any term with /-mini/ 'berry, nut' can form its corresponding tree name by replacing /-mini/ with /-mi$i/ 'tree'. Thus, the 'oak' word seems to be backformed from the 'acorn' word, only incidentally producing a word that makes no sense synchronically. So in some abstract sense /mihtekami$i/ really means 'acorn tree', even tho the 'acorn' word isn't in it. David > I might add that as a curiosity, there are some names of trees in Miami- > Illinois that contain two morphemes for "tree," such as /ahsenami$aahkwi/, one > of three terms in the language for "maple tree," which is literally > "stone-tree-tree". From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Jan 4 17:48:03 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:48:03 -0600 Subject: tree tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Costa wrote: > My favorite oddball tree name in Miami-Illinois would have to be > /mihtekami$i/, which is the generic word for 'oak'. Those of you who've been > reading these emails closely might have already noticed that this word > literally means 'tree tree': /mihtek(w)-/ is the M-I reflex of the PA word > for 'tree', and /-(e)mi$i/ is that 'tree' final again. (Only Fox/Kickapoo > has a cognate: Fox /mehtekomi$i/ 'white oak'.) There's also Ojibway mittikomi^z 'oak'. Alan H. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Jan 4 18:15:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:15:10 -0600 Subject: Wa-/Wicha history. Message-ID: I'm afraid a comparative perspective on the wa- vs. wicha- problem doesn't provide as much useful information as one might wish. The problem is that wicha- exists only in the Dakotan subgroup, but it seems to be found throughout Dakotan. This means that it's history is difficult to trace within Dakotan and impossible to trace outside it. It is probably realistic to reconstruct *wa- within Mississippi Valley Siouan at the very least. But its precise semantics/function would need to be determined by a careful grammatical comparison of Dhegiha (which John has pretty much covered already), Chiwere, Hocank/Winnebago, etc. The implication seems to be that, wherever you find wicha- used today in the Dakotan verb complex, you may have had wa- at an earlier time. This may not be 100% so, but as a working hypothesis, it's a start. To the extent that it is true, wicha- can be said to have replaced wa- first in human and then animate contexts, i.e., wicha- (always??) spreads at the expense of wa-. We would then expect to be able to seriate the derivational vocabulary to a certain extent (e.g., Konstantin's nice listing). Older derivations would be expected to show wa- where, today, we might expect wicha-. Broadly, derivations with pan-MVS cognates should have (or have had) wa-. Those without cognates outside of Dakotan should have the wa/wicha split. I believe John said something about like this in a recent posting. More recent derivations should yield wicha-, not wa-, in animate contexts. But, of course, older constructs in wa- may have been reanalyzed with wicha- analogically. We would not generally expect replacement of wicha- with wa-, however. Replacement should be one-way. Since grammar change, as opposed to sound change, is lexically gradual (analogical), we might expect (1) that different Dakotan dialects will show different distributions of wicha- vs. wa- (this is where Linda's Assiniboine may come in handy, also Stoney, as well as the better-attested dialects), (2) that different generations of Dakotan speakers may show different distributions of wicha/wa, so that, (3), using these distributional differences, we may be able to trace the categorial spread of wicha- within Dakotan. This is all very common-sensical, so I apologize for its obviousness. Anyway, that's the perspective of a comparativist. Now all that is needed is somebody to do all the related work!! A great doctoral dissertation topic. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Jan 4 23:00:19 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:00:19 -0600 Subject: Missouria names Message-ID: Thanks to Bob, Jimm and John for their comments on Missouria names. I've found a nice source for several more. It seems that Oklahoma State maintains an on-line list with the full text of all the treaties made by the U.S. Government with various Indian tribes up to the late 1800's. They are ordered by date, and the URL to the index listing can be found at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/tocy1.htm There seem to be a few errors in the text. Notably, the Omaha (Mahah) are to be found as the Makah for the treaties of 1815 and 1825, and Manuel Lisa comes out as Manuel Liea in the 1817 treaty with the Ponca. Hence there is probably some room for doubt about the accuracy of the transcription of some of the names of Indians signatory to the treaties. In the 1830 treaty reserving western Iowa and northwestern Missouri as a common hunting ground for several Indian tribes, the Missourias are: Eh-shaw-manie, or the one who walks laughing Ohaw-tchee-ke-sakay, one who strikes the Little Osages Wamshe-katou-nat, the great man Shoug-resh-kay, the horse fly Tahmegrai-Soo-igne, little deer's dung In the 1836 treaty backpedaling on the 1830 treaty so as to evict all Indians from northwestern Missouri, the Missouria names are: Hah-che-ge-suga Black Hawk No Heart Wan-ge-ge-he-ru-ga-ror The Arrow Fender Wah-ne-min-er Big Wing And in the 1854 treaty in which the Oto-Missouria gave up their claims in most of Nebraska to move down to their southeastern Nebraska-northeastern Kansas reservation, the Missouria names are: Ah-hah-che-ke-saw-ke, Missouria Chief Maw-thra-ti-ne, White Water Eh-shaw-manie, or the one who walks laughing, should probably be Is^a-mani, corresponding to OP i'h^a-moN'dhiN. Is^a - laugh; mani - walk. The velar fricative in 'laugh' seems to have been palatalized. Tahmegrai-Soo-igne, little deer's dung, should probably be Ta-migre-su-igne. Ta - deer; igne - dung; migre or migresu - little(?); su - possessive(?). Beyond those two, I'm stumped. Can anyone else make sense of them? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Jan 5 03:09:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:09:13 -0600 Subject: More regarding "wa" Message-ID: John wrote: > My gut feeling is the opposite, of course, though I really haven't > presented any general line of evidence in favor of it. However, at a > minimum I feel it simplifies matters to have a single wa behaving in a > consistent way in several different contexts, rather than one indefinite > patient wa and one nominalization/head-marking wa, with overlapping but > different patterns of agreement. In OP, the patient wa- refers to (I think only animate) 'them', in about the same distribution as Dakotan wicha-. It also refers to 'us', which I think in Dakotan is handled with the same uN(k)- that is used for 'we'. The latter has a quirk in that awa-, rather than wa-, is used for 'us' in the causatives. In Dakotan, wa- is not used as an animate patient affixed pronoun in either 'them' or 'us' cases. Is this all correct? What is the career of the animate patient affixed pronoun use of wa- ? Is it general in Dhegihan, Chiwere and Winnebago, in both 'them' and 'us' usages? Is it possible that it has been spreading into these contexts in the same way as we suppose Dakotan wicha did? > At the moment I'm inclined to see wa prefixes in verbs as indefinite (or, > really, non-specific) patients, and in some languages as third person > plural object inflections (in OP not 3p subject inflections, even in > statives). Judging from the Dakotan examples given recently, I'd like to propose an alternative hypothesis that wa- was originally not a noun marker at all, but that it acted to generalize the action of the verb. I would be interested in seeing a comparison between Dakotan verbs starting with wa-, and the same verbs without the wa-. My prediction is that where both versions exist and are transparently related to each other, the form without the wa- should imply a specific action, and the form with the wa- should imply that the action is normative. I would expect this rule to be standard in MVS and at least well fossilized in Dakotan. Second, I would propose that generalized verbs were favored as noun constructions. If you are making up a noun as a verb derivative, the entity is usually being described in terms of what it does normally, not by what it just does once. Hence, we get many verb-derived nouns beginning with wa-. This also should be normal and productive in MVS. Third, as time passes and MVS splits into its daughter languages, new forms develop to indicate normative or habitual action, and wa- ceases to be used productively as a normativizer in the non-Dakotan languages. In ancestral OP at least, the loss of the original wa- rule forces a reinterpretation of wa- in both the noun and verb contexts. In the noun context, wa- is now understood as a head-marker for an entity normatively characterized by the action of the verb. The verb itself can be either active or stative; it doesn't matter, because in its role in forming a noun characterized by its normative action, it is always effectively stative in function, regardless of which way the action goes. In this context, it is always a descriptor. This semantic reinterpretation of wa- should be able to take place without immediate alteration of any preceding rules of syntax. Meanwhile, the wa- on the verb side is also reinterpreted from normative or habitual or repeated action, to imply multiple objects acted upon. Since the ancestral language perhaps had no patient pronouns for 'us' and 'them', wa- was then readapted to fill these slots. Finally, in the case of the Dakotan wa-wa- situations, I would suggest that instead of functioning to cancel multiple patient slots as we've been assuming, perhaps all that is going on here is reduplication of a generalizer. What's happening is that the generalization is being squared through all dimensions of possible variance. Wa-wa-speak would mean to speak repeatedly in all possible conversations with all possible people. House wa-wa-paint would mean to paint the house at various possible times in various possible places in various possible colors. John, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've been pondering them for the last few days. The above hypothesis is the current result. Feel free to shoot it down, or to expand on your own views about wa- as primordial patient marker! Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: More regarding "wa" owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/01/2004 12:10 AM Please respond to siouan At the moment I'm inclined to see wa prefixes in verbs as indefinite (or, really, non-specific) patients, and in some languages as third person plural object inflections (in OP not 3p subject inflections, even in statives). In nominalizations I think they play the same role(s), and are not subject references unless the subject is encoded as a patient. I'm arguing this in terms of Omaha-Ponca, but I think that similar arguments apply in other Siouan languages, modulo the wa vs. wic^ha complexity in Dakotan. I'll take advantage of Rory's examples to play the devil's advocate, as I think his analysis of wa as the subject marker in nominalizations is essentially different, and requires that wa in nominalizations be regarded as having a different pattern of functioning than wa in unnominalized verbs. Again, I have not yet done any examination of standard grammars to verify this, but I think his approach is not without its advocates. In essence in his analysis wa is the reference to the head of the nominalization, or it might be considered to be just the mark of nominalization, since it doesn't contrast with another marker of nominalization. Rory already draws the necessary distinctions, so I'm just running through his arguments in reverse, so to speak. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Rory M Larson wrote: > The issue of wa- prefixes in nouns that Tom and John are discussing has > perplexed me too, particularly in parsing names for tools and other > technical terms. In my posting last week, I suggested that wa- might > refer to the subject as well as to objects. What I had in mind was this > apparent use of wa- as a nominalizer: > > wa-sabe = 'the one that is black' > wa-s^abe = 'the one that is dark' > ... I agree that wa here is a reference to the subject, but also to the patient, as the underlying stems here are stative. > These are all stative verbs, but it looks as if active verbs can be used > in the same way: > > wa-nidhe = 'the one that heals' Here I think the form is essentially 3pInd-(A3)-heals 'he heals them', i.e., that wa refers to the ones healed (indefinite or actually nonspecific third person patients), not to the healer (a specific, if indefinite reference). > And then there is the whole suite of implement terms that are built on > the framework of > > [NOM]-i-VERB > > where /-i-/ is the instrumental that implies that VERB is enacted by > means of something. Usually, if a noun sits in front: > > NOUN-i-VERB > > then the noun is the object of the verb's action. Rarely, however, it > seems that the noun can be the head of the derived noun phrase, and > implies that the noun is used to perform the verbal action, rather than > that it is the object of the verbal action. I only have one example at > the moment, and it's not as clear as I would like. > > moNzezi-i-gattushi > brass -i- explode > 'the brass thing that is used to explode' > = 'gun cap' > > As a caveat, it isn't certain that the internal -i- exists; it might > just be I'd agree that it could be there, "hidden," and missed in transcription. > moNzezi-gattushi > 'exploding brass' Another possibility here is that in this case ga functions to form a stative of the sort invariably formed by the outer instrumental na= 'by heat'. In essence the inner instrumental ga- here is an oblique reference 'with violence' and the (patient) subject is governed by the underlying stem ttus^i. The clause structure is similar to maN'ze na'= z^ide iron with heat red "red hot poker" > Assuming that such constructions do exist, however, > I'm inclined to think that the wa- in we- < *wa-i- > nouns is the head of the derived noun phrase, and > means 'that which is used to enact VERB'. I'd argue that as constructions like NOUN(instrument) i-VERB are admittedly more the norm it would be more likely that wa was standing in for an unspecified instrumental noun, though if nouns in other capacities can occur we might want to admit that wa might also stand in those capacities, too. Whether we might want to allow wa to occur with agents "bronze that causes an explosion" depends on a number of factors, of course - whether this is the same wa that marks indefinite patients or not, and whether we're really convinced that that wa is itself restricted to patients. > In fact, we can find up to three variants of the > same i-VERB nominalization. > > NOUN-i-VERB > moNkkoNsabe-i-dhittube > coffee -i- grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > Here, 'coffee' is an object noun. > > i-VERB > i-dhittube > i-grind > 'coffee-grinder', literally 'grinder' > > Finally, we can get the same thing with a wa-: > > wa-i-VERB > wedhittube > wa-i-grind > 'coffee-grinder' > > But does this last construction mean > > 'thing used to grind (things)' > > or > > '(thing) used to grind things' ? > > My gut feeling favors the first interpretation, and I think our speakers > have also favored that, but it is really hard to find words that clearly > distinguish the matter. My gut feeling is the opposite, of course, though I really haven't presented any general line of evidence in favor of it. However, at a minimum I feel it simplifies matters to have a single wa behaving in a consistent way in several different contexts, rather than one indefinite patient wa and one nominalization/head-marking wa, with overlapping but different patterns of agreement. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 03:18:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:18:38 -0700 Subject: tree tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > However, the reason for this is pretty clear, if you look around: the > Miami-Illinois word for 'acorn' is /mihtekamini/, which is literally 'tree > berry'. (This term is MUCH more widely attested across Algonquian.) There > seems to be a morphological process whereby any term with /-mini/ 'berry, > nut' can form its corresponding tree name by replacing /-mini/ with /-mi$i/ > 'tree'. Thus, the 'oak' word seems to be backformed from the 'acorn' word, > only incidentally producing a word that makes no sense synchronically. So in > some abstract sense /mihtekami$i/ really means 'acorn tree', even tho the > 'acorn' word isn't in it. Apart, perhaps, from the widespread cognacy of 'acorn' in the form 'tree berry' couldn't you argue that 'oak' had become the unmarked kind of 'tree'? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 04:45:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:45:31 -0700 Subject: Little Acorns and Great Oaks (Re: tree tree) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > My favorite oddball tree name in Miami-Illinois would have to be > /mihtekami$i/, which is the generic word for 'oak'. Those of you who've been > reading these emails closely might have already noticed that this word > literally means 'tree tree': /mihtek(w)-/ is the M-I reflex of the PA word > for 'tree', and /-(e)mi$i/ is that 'tree' final again. For what it's worth, the analog of this in, say, Omaha-Ponca, as an example of Siouan patterns, is that 'oak' is the 'acorn tree' with hi 'stem, tree', e.g., tta(a)'s^ka hi 'burr oak', buu'de hi 'red oak'. I give the long vowel in the latter with a particularly clear conscience as it is indicated as such in Gilmore. Winnebago has c^a(a)s^ke(') hu (Gilmore) and c^aaas^gegu (Miner) for the former, and, matching the latter, huu'c^ 'acorn'. Dakotan has usku'yec^ha-hu for 'bur oak' (sic, for oskuyec^ha(N) hu (?)) and u'ta hu 'red oak' (Gilmore). But Buechel gives u'ta 'hazelnut, acorns' and utahu 'oak (acorn tree)' with u'tahu c^haN for the 'burr oak'. In the latter c^haN is 'wood' often used as the 'tree' term in plant names, and so we have an 'acorn-tree tree' form in Siouan, too. (Gilmore's example osku'yac^haN hu does, too, but reverses the two 'tree' elements.) Miner's form for the first Winnebago term in this pair is clarified by IO tha(a)'s^ku 'burr oak', which has a contraction of *tha(a)s^ke and hu. Miner's form might be a typo, but, giving it the benefit of the doubt, it could be an analogical rectification of c^aas^ke' 'burr oak acorn' : c^aas^ku' 'bur oak' to c^aas^ke' : c^aaske'gu. Students of Winnebago waffle somewhat on whether to write s^g or s^k in clusters. The Dakota substitution of osku'ya 'sour' in the name of this tree is interesting. Sku'ya is 'sweet', cf. OP ski'dhe 'sweet', niNski'dhe 'salty'. LaFlesche lists an Osage term hta(a)s^ka' sku'(dh)e hi 'sweet acorn tree; white oak'. It looks like the Dakota form may be abbreviated from something like this. The PMV term for 'burr acorn' seems to be *htaa's^-ka. Tutelo has taaskahuu(i). I think the -i is an artifact of citation, though I'm not sure. The fricative grade is wrong. Biloxi has aNtaska 'basket' and Ofo atuphoNtuska 'basket', which may be connected. Biloxi also has c^axku'(di) 'jack or post oak', presumably with -(h)u contracted. (Biloxi -di is predicative.) Here the initial c^ is wrong for *ht, and the fricative grade is also wrong, but the parallel in form is remarkable. This form probably has something to do with Muskogean forms like Creek "tcoska" "white oak', Hitchiti "tciski" 'white oak', etc., so there are apparently comparable terms in other languages. The 'red oak/acorn' term is irregular. OP buu'de matches IO bu(u)'j^e, except that we'd expect OP *biide in a regular correspondence. (Quapaw has ppi(i)'de, in which pp instead of p is the problem, possibly a difficulty in Dorsey's transcriptions.) Modulo these little problems we seem to have PS *puut-. The *p, however, is missing in the rest of the family, including Winnebago. Winnebago has *h, with huu'c^ from *huut-. Dakotan has u'ta < *uut-. Biloxi has uti misk(a) u(di) 'pin oak' (DS 283a), and Ofo has u'tu 'oak', again with -(h)u contracted. These suggest *uut-, too. The b-initial in Dhegiha and Chiwere looks like what happens when first person A1 *w(a)- is added to oral glottal stop stems, so perhaps *puut- represents wa-(?)uut-, with the wa- nonspecific possessor prepended. Winnebago h- is unclear, though Winnebago does have a sort of Cockney (or Shawnee) propensity to add epenthetic h to vowel initial words - usually not if they are ?-stem verbs, though. Choctaw has uti, oti 'chestnut', so there may be non-Siouan examples of comparable terms. A thing you have to know about IO bu(u)'j^e is that it also means glans penis. Latin glans has a similar double meaning. These notes were compiled with the help of the CSD draft. From rwd0002 at unt.edu Mon Jan 5 05:12:01 2004 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:12:01 -0600 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: <3FF80375.6171.16710E@localhost> Message-ID: Quoting bi1 at soas.ac.uk: > Sorry to use the List as a location agency, but is Willem DeReuse out > there or does any one know his email address. I did not find the > University of North Texas web site easy to use. > > Bruce Dear Bruce: Yes, I am a lurker on the Siouan list. My address is rwd0002 at unt.edu. Happy New Year. Willem de Reuse From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 05:43:50 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:43:50 -0800 Subject: tree tree Message-ID: > Apart, perhaps, from the widespread cognacy of 'acorn' in the form 'tree > berry' couldn't you argue that 'oak' had become the unmarked kind of 'tree'? Kind of doubt it. I don't think acorns were tremendously important to the livelihood of Algonquians. Plus, the semantic composition of this word *is* odd; it's not normal for an Algonquian noun, generic or not, to be composed of two parts, both meaning the same basic thing. However, what I think you're describing does happen in a few places: the Proto-Algonquian word for what was probably the yellow poplar, */asa:twiya/, shifts its meaning to plain 'tree' in the plains languages Cheyenne, Arapaho, Gros Ventre, & Nawathinehena. This probably happened by shifting this term to mean 'cottonwoods' in the high plains, with cottonwoods then becoming the 'unmarked kind of tree'. Dave From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 06:25:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:25:17 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > In OP, the patient wa- refers to (I think only animate) 'them', in about > the same distribution as Dakotan wicha-. It also refers to 'us', which I > think in Dakotan is handled with the same uN(k)- that is used for 'we'. > The latter has a quirk in that awa-, rather than wa-, is used for 'us' > in the causatives. In Dakotan, wa- is not used as an animate patient > affixed pronoun in either 'them' or 'us' cases. Is this all correct? This is correct as I understand it. But note that wa as 'us' (P12) is wa-a- with i and dative -(g)i-, since with them we find wea- < wa-(g)i-a-. > What is the career of the animate patient affixed pronoun use of wa- ? > Is it general in Dhegihan, Chiwere and Winnebago, in both 'them' and > 'us' usages? Is it possible that it has been spreading into these > contexts in the same way as we suppose Dakotan wicha did? Da OP IO Wi A12 uN(k)- aN(g)- hiN- hiN- P12 uN(k)- wa-a- wa-wa waNaNg-a- O3p wic^ha- wa- wa- wa- P3ns wa- wa- wa- wa-/waz^aN= Ps3ns wic^ha- wa- ??? ??? I think the bimorphemic P12 forms are all capable of having morphemes like the i-locative fall in the middle. I may have length wrong in some of the wa's in some of the forms. The gist of the current discussion is that productive animate P3ns are actually wic^ha- in Dakotan, too. In general O3p marking occurs only with animates anyway. Use of wa- in some of these contexts may be more or less moribund in some of the languages. Some of Constantine's examples looked like they might have wic^ha- S3ns with active verbs. (A = agent (active + transitive subject), P = patient (stative subject + transitive object), O = (transitive) object, Ps = possessive, 12 = inclusive, 3p = third plural, ns = nonspecific) > Judging from the Dakotan examples given recently, I'd like to propose an > alternative hypothesis that wa- was originally not a noun marker at all, > but that it acted to generalize the action of the verb. This is essentially what I'm arguing, except that I believe it still works this way in OP and Dakota (to the extent that wic^ha hasn't stuck its oar in). > My prediction is that where both versions exist and are transparently > related to each other, the form without the wa- should imply a specific > action, and the form with the wa- should imply that the action is > normative. I would expect this rule to be standard in MVS and at least > well fossilized in Dakotan. I agree with this completely, though I'm calling it "acting on a specific object" (third person object without wa) and "acting on a non-specific object" (third person object with wa). The actual semantics might vary a bit from language to language. > Second, I would propose that generalized verbs were favored as noun > constructions. ... Hence, we get many verb-derived nouns beginning with > wa-. This also should be normal and productive in MVS. Again, this is what I'd say, with different terminology. > Third, as time passes and MVS splits into its daughter languages, new > forms develop to indicate normative or habitual action, and wa- ceases > to be used productively as a normativizer in the non-Dakotan languages. > In ancestral OP at least, the loss of the original wa- rule forces a > reinterpretation of wa- in both the noun and verb contexts. In the noun > context, wa- is now understood as a head-marker for an entity > normatively characterized by the action of the verb. Here I disagree, though I think that linguists and speakers alike might easily fall into the error of thinking this, based on (a) a tendency to see things that translate English nouns as nouns, and (b) taking a sort of rough and ready "this matches this" approach to cutting up the morphemes. If we-action recurs in the form of translations for English nouns that are conceptually action-er nouns, it is natural to assume at first cut that we- is the analog of -er, and a little analysis of the morphology leads to taking wa- in we- as the head marker. I just think this is the wrong analysis. Siouan languages are definitely not nounless, but, though they have sizable numbers of words that are formally nouns, they also have many words that refer like nouns, but are verbal in morphology. Naturally, there is a tendency for such words to behave more and more like nouns in terms of syntax and morphology over time, so we find anomalies in how possessive is marked, etc. For example, the equivalent of 'my house' might be rendered 'I live in it' or 'my he-lives-in-it' to cut across the slippery but convenient slope of translational analysis. I used to think I was maybe the only person with this perhaps somewhat subversive view, but I've detected signs of late that others think somewhat along these lines, too, though perhaps more clearly. > Meanwhile, the wa- on the verb side is also reinterpreted from normative > or habitual or repeated action, to imply multiple objects acted upon. > Since the ancestral language perhaps had no patient pronouns for 'us' > and 'them', wa- was then readapted to fill these slots. I'm not sure that "acting on non-specific" and "acting on multiple" aren't more or less interchangeable concepts in the Siouan languages, though this idea may not hold water for Dakota. The distinction is clear enough in English, but hard to justify in, say, Omaha-Ponca. However, what you suggest is a plausible analysis of how wa- comes to be part of the inflectional morphology of P12 and O3p in various languages and one that I've definitely always used for wa O3p and recently been inclining to for P12, too. It's encouraging to see you coming so readily to the same conclusions. Along these lines, Bob has argued that *(w)aNk- ~ *(w)uNk- as an inclusive marker originates in an incorporated noun for 'man' (cf. French on < Latin homin- used in this way in French), with something like IO waMe ~ waNe 'man' < *waNk-e fitting the formal requirements fairly nicely. We also know that wa- is effectively a "generic incorporated noun" (a pro-incorporand, or pro-noun, if you will, rather like Eskimo pi-, I think). It could easily stand in for a generic reference of some sort in the clause, and Siouan as a whole, with *wa/uNk- in the inclusive role, and Dakotan, with wic^ha- in various animate third peson roles, show that these categories are often handled with incorporated nouns. So, wa- can easily stand in for one of these incorporands. In terms of details, I'm not quite sure why two wa's in P12 in IO. I think the IO and Wi hiN- are cognate to the OP dative contraction of aN(g)- and gi-, which is iN(g)-, and I've argued the details of that elsewhere. I suggest it's a sort of antipassive. The extra a in the Dhegiha wa-a- and Wi waNaNg-a- may be a locative, and essentially the same sort of thing - an oblique reference to the inclusive object. Maybe IO wa-wa- conceals the IO cognate of this a- under some reanalysis. It's interesting to note that Crow-Hidatsa lacks both of these uses of wa-, along with the inclusive pronominal itself. They just pluralize the first person. However, with stative verbs, according to Randy, Crow substitutes for the first person plural a prefix balee which is paired, in effect, with a third person singular verb as far as the morphology of the rest of the form. I don't know if there is an etymology for balee-, though as far as form goes it is essentially wa-ee with an epenthetic r separating the two parts. It could also be an incorporated noun, I suppose. In any event, the general form is very much like what Bob considers we should expect for the historical underpinnings of the inclusive, though I think it must be an independent development. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 06:30:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:30:03 -0700 Subject: tree tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Costa wrote: > However, what I think you're describing does happen in a few places: the > Proto-Algonquian word for what was probably the yellow poplar, > */asa:twiya/, shifts its meaning to plain 'tree' in the plains languages > Cheyenne, Arapaho, Gros Ventre, & Nawathinehena. This probably happened > by shifting this term to mean 'cottonwoods' in the high plains, with > cottonwoods then becoming the 'unmarked kind of tree'. Oaks are certainly very common in Eastern hardwood forests, though I think North America's variety of tree species is much larger than than in, say, Europe. Cottonwoods are pretty unmarked on the Plains, though in some places the balance seems to be shifting in favor of the Russian Olive, sad to say. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 07:30:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:30:18 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <15585306187.20040103143020@mail.ru> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Wablenica wrote: > I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 > derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, > almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words > starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about > wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple > or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? As I understand it, the anomaly arises from the bulk of the productive instances being essentially verbal in nature, and predictable from the stem. Wa and wic^ha forms that are fixed nominal expressions or seem idiomatic in use are listed in the dictionaries, but those that are predictable "detransitivized" forms derived from transitive verbs are not listed. So, we have to ask ourselves, when faced with a transitive verb - does the detransitivized or non-spcific object form of this verb take wa, wic^ha, or perhaps both? My understanding hitherto has been that it would take wa and that would be the end of it, but Regina and at least to some extent Linda are telling us that if the non-specific reference is animate and especially if it is human the actual form of the affix is wic^ha, not wa. Thus thi'wic^hakte is both a nominal reference 'murderer', which does get listed in the dictionaries, and the predictable non-specific object form 'to commit murder; to murder people' corresponding to thikte' 'to murder someone; to murder a particular person', which the knowledgeable dictionary user is to deduce from the listing of thikte' only. I'm still not quite clear if it's only occasional benighted students of Omaha-Ponca who were under the impression that the correct form there was thiwa'kte, with all of the Dakotanists, at least, in the know all along, or if there has been some historical confusion among Dakotanists about this, too. Unfortunately, Siouanists in general are pretty unsure what forms to list in Siouan dictionaries, as we are in general quite vague on what forms are predictable. I think the usual approach has been to eliminate anything that seemed inflectional in some fairly imprecise sense, and to include anything that was (a) unpredictable in meaning, or (b) the translationof something we would include in an English dictionary, while (c) hoping that all these criteria were consistant and useful. I think this is why the best dictionaries are made by teams of native speakers who are also highly-educated workoholic geniuses, though a single workoholic of any kind at all is the normal substitute. Apart from this, the different nature of the morphology and/or syntax of transitivity in Siouan and European languages makes the glossing of verb forms something of a difficult art. The usual practices of the more thoughtful students of the languages are sometimes quite stilted and clearly bother native speakers who expect something straightforward and idiomatic in the English. This is general problem, of course, not only with respect to other issues in Siouan-English translation - think of the issue of glossing motion verbs - but in bilingual dictionaries generally. In essence, a good, clarifying gloss is anything but a good idiomatic translation. You have to be adept at converting the glosses into working English. All this without addressing the issue of actual definitions at all! It has never really occurred to me before that gloss, translation, and definition could be different. > 1. Wicha- prefixed. These might be argued to be or include body-part possessives. > wicha'chepa Human fatness, obesity > wicha'chepahala a certain high but not wide mountain > wicha'hooyu'spa a voice or sound record; a sound recorder > wicha'phehiNkag^api False hair, a wig These might be argued to be kinterm possessives. > wicha'atkuku a father, their father > wicha'chiNca Children, posterity, offspring, > wicha'huNkake Ancestors > wicha'huNku a mother, mothers wica'h^aNh^aN I think these might be some sort of noun-noun compound. > wicha'thoka a male captive > wicha'thokeca Differences; things different Maybe this is, too? > wicha'gnas^ka gooseberries But 'person-frogs'? There has to be a story there! The rest look like arguably good cases of lexicalized non-specific reference wic^ha nominalizations. > --It would be interesting, of course, to learn the difference between > wawiyuNg^api, > wiwichayuNg^api, > wi'yuNg^api, and > wo'(w)iyuNg^e Yes indeed! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 07:40:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:40:17 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) Message-ID: I've taken the liberty of posting this to the list. Tjhis a great question which came to me as a personal query, but it's one for which I don't have an answer and an answer would be very desirable to SIouanists at large. I've been asking myself the same question for about two years now! I was just discussing this with Mark Swetland, too. Is it possible to convert microfilm to a stack of CDs with image files on them? Does anyone know the tools for this, or the name of any services that do it for you? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:16:55 -0600 From: Tom Leonard Aho, John! Have a question for you. Several years ago I purchased all of the microfilms (6 or 8 rolls) of the Dorsey material at the National Archives. These were the rolls that you had told me about. [Note: The world owes these to Mark Swetland who went to the NAA and made them for them. Unlike the APS, the NAA does not - or did not at the time, anyway - make it a practice to microfilm their holdings. I suspect this is a budgetary issue, since it's kind of an obvious step.] There's some great material on them but I don't have convenient access to a microfilm reader. Copying each slide got way too expensive and the copies were hard to read. Considering the advances in technology and lower equipment prices, it seems to me we should now be able to scan the film into tiff , GIF, JPEG, etc., files. I ordered "reverse images" on the films, i.e. black writing on white background (a whole lot easier to read). I've been shopping around eBay and the like for scanners but I really don't know enough about what is required. Have any idea about what's needed here? Does anyone at CU have the necessary equipment or ability to advise? Having the Dorsey material in digital format would be a whole lot easier for a bunch of us; don't you think? Would appreciate any ideas you might have on this. Wi'btha ho! Tom From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 08:13:47 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:13:47 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Considering the advances in technology and lower equipment prices, it > seems to me we should now be able to scan the film into tiff , GIF, JPEG, > etc., files. I ordered "reverse images" on the films, i.e. black writing > on white background (a whole lot easier to read). I've been shopping > around eBay and the like for scanners but I really don't know enough about > what is required. My first answer to Tom's query is that I have noticed that Publishing Perfection sells - or used to sell - haven't checked recently - something called the PacficImage PrimeFilm 1800 AFL scanner, which scans 35 mm film and has an automatic film loader that feeds 35 mm strips and rolled film. It was $295 the last I looked. I don't know what size rolls (not same as reels?) it handles and, of course, microfilm is not 35 mm anyway. I don't know if such a device or something like it might suffice to scan microfim, even rather laboriously with a lot of hand attendance and screen shot adjustment. I never got so far as to investigate this as at the moment - now stretching out to several years - I don't really have the money to pursue it if it would work! My second answer is that I assume there is a company somewhere that will do this, reducing the problem to one of copying CDs, but I don't know who they are or if any of one or coalition of us can afford it. Mark Swetland's solution was to buy a used microfim reader, and that may be the best one. That bracketed note about Mark's contributions to all this in the posting of Tom's inquiry was me, by the way, not Tom. I'm not sure how many CDs of images from 8 rolls of microfilm works out to, by the way, but I suspect it is a fair number. For the Dorsey OP slip file alone, which I remember as an estimated 20K slips that is 20K images, and if each image is 1 MB, just for the sake of argument, then we are talking about 20 GB. Looking at it another way, a CD holds about 600 MB of data (along with indices, etc.). That means 600 images on a CD, or 34 CDs. And this is for the slip file. It might make more sense to look at DVDs, which hold much more, though I don't actually have a DVD reader at present. I think typical formats hold 2-5 GB of data, which reduces the number of disks to 4-10. Mark and Rory probably have a better handle on the numbers of images involved. The earlier approach to this that I thought of was to see if anyone was interested in publishing the slips and grammar as is, xerographically. I had a suspicion the answer was "Not really," though, in a sense, something like this is needed to do justice to the place of J.O. Dorsey in the field. I mean, they've done things like this for Bloomfield, a mere Algonquianist when all is said and done (tongue firmly in cheek), even if he did coincidentally publish a few general works of importance. But in Dorsey we're talking about the man who invented the term "second dative," after all! JEK From Hu_Matthews at sil.org Fri Jan 2 19:48:03 2004 From: Hu_Matthews at sil.org (Hu Matthews) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:48:03 -0700 Subject: postpositions Message-ID: In Crow postpositions is (are) the rule. I know of no prepositions in Crow. However, the postpositions are often moved to pre-verb position and pronounced as if they were part of the verb. Also they are bi-morphemic. aw? ?akeen earth on on the earth ?akeen consists of ?ake (surface,top) plus n (at) Another way of looking at it is to call it a partitive construction. aw? ?ake (the surface of the earth) plus the postposition n. However, if ?ake is a noun and n is the postposition, then we need to explain why there are very few nouns that can be suffixed with a postposition. Hu Matthews ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:32 AM Subject: postpositions > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > Bruce > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Jan 5 14:29:37 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:29:37 -0500 Subject: oak Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: "The Dakota substitution of osku'ya 'sour' in the name of this tree is interesting.B Sku'ya is 'sweet', cf. OP ski'dhe 'sweet', niNski'dhe 'salty'.B LaFlesche lists an Osage term hta(a)s^ka' sku'(dh)e hi 'sweet acorn tree; white oak'.B It looks like the Dakota form may be abbreviated from something like this." I don't know if this relates but it may be useful to point out that the white oak produces sweet, edible acorns, while the black (and related red) oak produces really nasty-tasting fruit filled with tannin. Michael From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jan 5 15:04:08 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:04:08 -0600 Subject: Dorsey microfilms Message-ID: It would probably be best to restrict any really expensive reproduction on CD/DVD to just the Omaha/Ponca files. The Kansa, Osage and Quapaw files are not complete because of financial and time constraints when the work was done, and the files for these languages should be complete before CD's are made. This will cut the cost and bulkiness somewhat, since the non-Omaha materials occupy at least 3 reels and maybe more. Personally, I'd love to have the Omaha lexicon on CD, and we all owe Mark a debt for having produced the microfilms. Bob From ckopris at yahoo.com Mon Jan 5 15:44:31 2004 From: ckopris at yahoo.com (Craig Kopris) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 07:44:31 -0800 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, conversion services are definitely available - I've had microfiche converted myself. Unfortunately, the company I used a few years back, New England Archiving or similar, is no longer in business. A google search on microfilm conversion will bring up several other companies. Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. Indexing can be added, as well. >>From what I remember, the cost of an initial cd can be high, but additional copies are cheap. Perhaps those interested in having the Dorsey mss on cd could pool their resources? Sizewise, I had a 500+ p ms, plus software for extracting and viewing the images, all fit on one cd with room to spare. Craig Kopris --- Koontz John E wrote: > I've taken the liberty of posting this to the list. > Tjhis a great > question which came to me as a personal query, but > it's one for which I > don't have an answer and an answer would be very > desirable to SIouanists > at large. I've been asking myself the same question > for about two years > now! I was just discussing this with Mark Swetland, > too. Is it possible > to convert microfilm to a stack of CDs with image > files on them? Does > anyone know the tools for this, or the name of any > services that do it for > you? > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:16:55 -0600 > From: Tom Leonard > > Aho, John! > > Have a question for you. Several years ago I > purchased all of the > microfilms (6 or 8 rolls) of the Dorsey material at > the National Archives. > These were the rolls that you had told me about. > > [Note: The world owes these to Mark Swetland who > went to the NAA and made > them for them. Unlike the APS, the NAA does not - > or did not at the time, > anyway - make it a practice to microfilm their > holdings. I suspect this > is a budgetary issue, since it's kind of an obvious > step.] > > There's some great material on them but I don't have > convenient access to > a microfilm reader. Copying each slide got way too > expensive and the > copies were hard to read. > > Considering the advances in technology and lower > equipment prices, it > seems to me we should now be able to scan the film > into tiff , GIF, JPEG, > etc., files. I ordered "reverse images" on the > films, i.e. black writing > on white background (a whole lot easier to read). > I've been shopping > around eBay and the like for scanners but I really > don't know enough about > what is required. > > Have any idea about what's needed here? Does anyone > at CU have the > necessary equipment or ability to advise? > > Having the Dorsey material in digital format would > be a whole lot easier > for a bunch of us; don't you think? > > Would appreciate any ideas you might have on this. > > Wi'btha ho! > Tom __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 17:02:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:02:38 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20040105154431.79500.qmail@web11406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > Indexing can be added, as well. What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of image is good enough to make out the necessary details? From tleonard at prodigy.net Mon Jan 5 18:28:52 2004 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:28:52 -0600 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm Message-ID: There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in such equipment. I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some light on the subject? TML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 19:55:16 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:55:16 -0800 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm Message-ID: I agree that digital photographing or scanning of original manuscripts is the wave of the future. Cheaper than microfilming, and a LOT easier to use -- just load the jpegs onto your computer and view them through any halfway decent graphics program. You can magnify them or fiddle with the contrast and such at will. Absolutely the way to go. Two years ago I got 24 jpegs of a 300-year-old Pequot vocab from Yale this way, and a Jesuit archive up in Quebec just digitally filmed a huge Illinois dictionary that I hope to receive jpegs of shortly. I expect the practice microfilming such documents will probably go extinct entirely someday. I don't know of anyone who's done it, but I suspect a person could just buy their own digital camera and a stack of diskettes and film one of these old documents on their own, if the archive in question didn't want to be bothered with doing it. I too can't imagine OCR ever becoming a viable option with these old handwritten manuscripts. Dave > Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I > believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task > would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available > (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in > such equipment. From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 5 20:37:45 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:37:45 -0600 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm In-Reply-To: <003501c3d3b9$c6d404e0$67dd4bab@tleonard> Message-ID: I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any problem getting access for scanning purposes? Carolyn Q. -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Leonard Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:29 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in such equipment. I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some light on the subject? TML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Mon Jan 5 20:59:09 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:59:09 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Aloha All: I thought I better chime in on the discussion. I had broached the topic with Brother John while visiting Boulder last week. This grew out of a question that I had posed last month to the NAA about current costs and options for copying the 8 JOD reels. I have a copy from the original... but have been thinking it might be useful to provide a copy up north to Omaha Nation Public School. I will let you know when the NAA responds to my question. The idea of getting this stuff off of a microfilm reader screen and into a computer is great. I am presuming (in my ignorance of the process) that someone could perform the transfer using a copy of the films (mine or John's or whomsoever's)... and not require access to the original film... or original documents???? Did any of you folks get a copy of the moderately useful finding aid that was delivered back to the NAA with the original reels? I typed it (no computer in those poverty days!). I can try scanning my copy into an attached file and send it to anyone who wants it. best uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Dorsey MicroFilm > I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ > to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any > problem getting access for scanning purposes? > Carolyn Q. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Leonard > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:29 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm > > > There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey > microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service > companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the > quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. > > Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal > of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was > expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes > per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. > > Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I > believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task > would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available > (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in > such equipment. > > I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could > tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some > light on the subject? > > TML > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Koontz John E" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 5 21:20:34 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:20:34 CST Subject: mircofilm digitization Message-ID: Yes, it's all possible. I've spent the last two years working on digitizing dakota and ojibwe texts from both print and microfilm. I just completed converting Iapi Oaye from microfilm to a web-navigable format. The images are archived as 500 dpi (actually better resolution than necessary for microfilm, but necessary for ocr of printed materials) tiff but converted to jpg for web page display. If anyone wants to see the Iapi Oaye cds let me know. Out of the 70 years it was published I'm missing less than ten pages (about 3100 images total. I'm hoping to distribute them more openly this spring when I get better at working with xslt processeors and can make the web pages work in more browser versions. As of right now, all the data and web pages are in xml so at this point it only works in internet explorer 6.0 on a pc. It might work on IE for mac too but I haven't checked. The University of Minnesota Wilson Library has all their microfilm print stations hooked up to computers now with capturing software that can send what you see on the reader to a printer or to a file. The 35mm film scanners and slide scanners don't work with microfilm. You have to have a reader with a paralell port output and software for requesting the image. The equipment to do all this is still too pricy for personal purchase in my opinion, so I'm happy to use the public equipment. My focus has been setting up standards and methods that anyone can replicate if they have the equipment. I work with great, trainable OCR software (Abbyy Finereader 7.0). I did lots of testing to find out what resolution you need to get the best results (500dpi), the best archiving format (tiff for black and white documents, 300 dpi jpg for greyscale or color). If you're interested in jumping into a digitizing project, let me know. This is what I'm committing much of my time to now. Don't waste time with grants and don't spend money on overpriced digitizing services. The quality of most of the digitized material I've seen so far, like those from the LOC and National Library of Canada, are actually really poor quality and consistency and their interfaces are pretty unimpressive and confusing. I'm interested in making all these materials available to anyone as low cost as possible. I posted a few of the images from Iapi Oaye so you can see the output. Here's the URIs: www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_01.jpg www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_02.jpg www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_03.jpg www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_04.jpg They're very large images so it may be a slow download at home. Let me know if you want the current (IE 6.0 for Windows only) version of the iapi oaye cds (only images, it'll probably be a few years before I've got it converted to text, or maybe someone else will do it). It took 4 cds to fit it all, but keep in mind that the images are very very large. I chose to make them huge since the originals were newspaper sized, and I want it to be easily readable. With normal 8.5 by 11 or smaller you'd be able to fit a lot more onto a cd. I have lots of other samples to of digitized print sources, and a few dissertations I got from fiche. In the next few months I'll be posting a list of what I've got. I hope to find some nice person at a university who can offer server space to distrbute the files so people can burn their own cds. I've got a lot of public domain sources digitized (though only a couple converted to full text and it'll be a while before I get the programming done to make those useful), though full text versions are my main goal. Here's some of what I've got: Dakotan: -most of the BIA's indian reader series in lakota (Emil Afraid of Hawk and Ann Nolan Clark) -buechel's grammar, bible history -deloria's dakota texts -dorsey's omaha ponca letters -hunflavy's dakota nyelv (hungarian) -hunt's bible history -pilling's biblio -rigg's grammar, dictionary, 1852 combo Ojibwe: -both baraga grammars, both dictionaries -belcourt's sauteux grammar -cuoq's grammar, dictionary -jones' ojibwe texts -lemoine's dictionary -pilling's biblio -verwyst's exercises -wilson's ojebway grammar I think now I have total around 25-30,000 pages of Dakota material and 15-20,000 pages of Ojibwe material scanned and useable in my nice web-page format. I'm focusing now on encoding full text versions so they're integrable. Now I'm coding full text versions of the Pilling and Pentland algonquian bibliographies and finding ways to combine them in a useful format. Next will be practicing combining a couple of dictionaries. Then there's the possibility of hooking it all together with texts linked to dictionaries and vice versa, having citations and bibliographies linked to digital versions of the original sources... endless possibility that should save lots of research time. There's a lot to this work, and I could go on for hours. I hope that sometime this year everything I've digitized (the public domain stuff) will be freely available to all. I'm am very interested in working with others on digitizing projects. I can give you a complete list of equipment, software, standards, and methods I use if you like. But I'm also open to the possibility of just having microfilm sent here for me to scan. I'm fast, I do good work, and I'd hate to see people spend time and money for low quality output. I enjoy the digitizing work, and from there I can set people up to train and run the ocr software and proof full text versions themselves. I know that in the near future this work will be an essential part of research. The best part is, if you do a good job, once you digitize something you can make it immediately available to everyone for free, and then every time anyone wants to work with the material, there it is! Some of the people here at the U of MN have loved having all the Ojibwe grammars on one cd and all the Ojibwe dicitonaries on another. It saves a lot of time, and makes things available that weren't really all that available before. Pat Warren From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 21:34:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:34:51 -0700 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <000701c3d3ce$c3d166b0$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: In response to kkagesaNga Mark's comment on his finder aid: I still have my copy, but haven't seen it recently. My files have been in chaos for the last five years. This reminds me that that is one of those manuscripts that should maybe be on file with John Boyle, along with the Siouan Archives cover document and maybe my tables of contents for the Dorsey "Ponka" grammar ms. and the Hahn (?) Ponca grammar ms. If anyone ever made a table of contents for the published Lipkind Winnebago grammar, that would be useful, too, by the way! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 21:29:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:29:59 -0700 Subject: Dorsey MicroFilm In-Reply-To: <000601c3d3cb$c64e06d0$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ > to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any > problem getting access for scanning purposes? I'd be willing to participate and to provide my copy of the film as a source. Returning to the 20K OP slips estimate - what I remember from the NAA card file - at $.025/exposure that works out to $2500. The Os slip file is much smaller and, of course, apart from straight lexical slip files there are things like maps with placenames, and files of personal names, as well as hundreds of pages of grammar mms. and day-to-day working notes. I don't recall if any are on the reels, but the NAA also holds some of the rough fieldnotes for the texts, written in blue pencil on coarse yellow paper, in the Riggs Dakota system with some modification. I was flabbergasted to discover that Dorsey never used "the Dorsey system" of the texts in fieldwork. Including this, there are at least 3 systems in his various work, plus various temporal and venue-based variants. Another astounding thing that appears in the manuscripts of the letters is that many of the names there differ from those published. I believe this reflects changes in Omaha and Ponca names used by various individuals between the time of transcription and the time of redaction. (I suppose it might also be some form of anomymizing, but other names don't change.) For what it's worth, some of Dorsey's ministerial notes are in the regional Episcopal archives in Vermillion. I've never seen these. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 5 21:46:36 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:46:36 -0700 Subject: mircofilm digitization In-Reply-To: <200401052120.i05LKYJ5001885@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Pat, your information is extremely helpful! I'll look at the images this evening when I get a chance. Are you in touch with Constantine Chmielnicki and Jan Ullrich (currently at Indiana U)? I think they're working along somewhat similar lines with Dakota lexical materials. It would be nice to have everybody on the same standard for once! JEK From wablenica at mail.ru Mon Jan 5 21:44:40 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:44:40 +0300 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello John: Monday, January 5, 2004, 10:30:18 AM, you wrote: KJE> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Wablenica wrote: >> I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 >> derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, >> almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words >> starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about >> wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple >> or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? KJE> As I understand it, the anomaly arises from the bulk of the productive KJE> instances being essentially verbal in nature, and predictable from the KJE> stem. Wa and wic^ha forms that are fixed nominal expressions or seem KJE> idiomatic in use are listed in the dictionaries, but those that are KJE> predictable "detransitivized" forms derived from transitive verbs are not KJE> listed. --I agree that the Buechel's dictionary cannot be considered a reliable source for derivation type frequency estimations. However I haven't yet seen the strong evidence for wicha- as a detransitivizer. Let's recall Regina's examples once again: (1) okichize el ota wicha-kte-pi war in many WICHA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' (2) *okichize el ota wa-kte-pi war in many WA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' " IMHO, the first sentence has an explicit PAT, a pronoun "ota", and wicha- here is just a regular pleonastic 3d person plural pronominal affix. Ota is "non-specific", not wicha :-)! This exlains the ungrammaticality of the second sentence: wa- cannot plug the valence already "filled" with ota. I would even translate the sent.#2 as "many made a killing in the war", if detransitivized wakte could be freely used as an independent verb, not an adverbial (wakte glipi). To my mind, we could talk about some additional function of wicha- if it could occur a) in sentences without "ota", "huNx", etc.: okichize el wicha-kte-pi -with non-specific meaning, not anaphoric ("people were killed in the war", not "(they) were killed in the war") b) and, more important, with non-specific _singular_ patiens implied: ? John the-wicha-xila. ? "John fell in love". However I doubt that such ambiguous usage of wicha- may easily spring forth. Regina wrote: "I hope that with ota 'many', I have created a PAT that is non-specific enough to "deserve" being cross-referenced by wa-, at least theoretically." --But I guess that the usage of wa- is triggered by formal grammatical conditions, not semantical ones. Likewise, we can say: wichasha wan ktepi, "they killed some man" tuwa ktepi, "they killed somebody" wanji ktepi, "they killed (some)one" --but wa- cannot be used here too. Finally, talking about the productivity, I'd like to suggest the following thesis: While stand-alone verbs with a wa-plug almost always have some idiomatic shades of meaning, _most_ transitive verbs may take wa- in some compounds, like those V+V cases described in Regina's great article: wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot wa-khute chin - he wants to shoot wa-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting, etc. Then what is the meaning of wicha-khute okihi wicha-khute chin wicha-khul wayuphike ? Best wishes, Constantine Chmielnicki From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jan 6 00:16:19 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:16:19 -0600 Subject: animate wa- Message-ID: Hello Constantine, I'm wondering if the dictionary definitions given are adequate to convey the full sense. My Lakhota is very rusty, but I wonder if we couldn't distinguish some of these as follows: khute okihi - he's able to shoot (specific situation-- the target is in front of him, and he stands with the bow drawn.) wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot (generality-- he has the necessary skills for shooting.) wicha-khute okihi - he's able to shoot them (either specific situation or generality; emphasis is on the transitivity of the action.) khute chin - he wants to shoot (specific situation-- he wants to take a shot immediately.) wa-khute chin - he wants to shoot (generality-- he wants to engage in the activity of shooting.) wicha-khute chin - he wants to shoot them (either specific situation or generality; emphasis is on somebody likely to get shot.) wa-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting, etc. (generality-- he is permanently good at shooting things in general.) wicha-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting them (generality-- he is permanently good at shooting those animate beings.) Do these interpretations make sense? If so, I wonder if we could distinguish wicha- from wa- by supposing wicha- to emphasize the transitivity of an action while wa- de-emphasizes it. Either could be used as a generalizer, and either could end up functioning as a noun. Rory Wablenica To: Koontz John E Sent by: cc: owner-siouan at lists.c Subject: Re: animate wa- olorado.edu 01/05/2004 03:44 PM Please respond to Wablenica Hello John: Monday, January 5, 2004, 10:30:18 AM, you wrote: KJE> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Wablenica wrote: >> I would like you to explain me one thing: Buechel has about 60 >> derivatives with wicha'- prefixed, and 30 entries with wicha- infixed, >> almost _all_ of them are nouns. At the same time there are 2600 words >> starting with wa-, 1600 of them are verbs. So how can we talk about >> wicha- being productive with animate verbs, if we have only a couple >> or two of them, thiwichakte and wichak'u? KJE> As I understand it, the anomaly arises from the bulk of the productive KJE> instances being essentially verbal in nature, and predictable from the KJE> stem. Wa and wic^ha forms that are fixed nominal expressions or seem KJE> idiomatic in use are listed in the dictionaries, but those that are KJE> predictable "detransitivized" forms derived from transitive verbs are not KJE> listed. --I agree that the Buechel's dictionary cannot be considered a reliable source for derivation type frequency estimations. However I haven't yet seen the strong evidence for wicha- as a detransitivizer. Let's recall Regina's examples once again: (1) okichize el ota wicha-kte-pi war in many WICHA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' (2) *okichize el ota wa-kte-pi war in many WA-kill-PL 'many were killed in the war' " IMHO, the first sentence has an explicit PAT, a pronoun "ota", and wicha- here is just a regular pleonastic 3d person plural pronominal affix. Ota is "non-specific", not wicha :-)! This exlains the ungrammaticality of the second sentence: wa- cannot plug the valence already "filled" with ota. I would even translate the sent.#2 as "many made a killing in the war", if detransitivized wakte could be freely used as an independent verb, not an adverbial (wakte glipi). To my mind, we could talk about some additional function of wicha- if it could occur a) in sentences without "ota", "huNx", etc.: okichize el wicha-kte-pi -with non-specific meaning, not anaphoric ("people were killed in the war", not "(they) were killed in the war") b) and, more important, with non-specific _singular_ patiens implied: ? John the-wicha-xila. ? "John fell in love". However I doubt that such ambiguous usage of wicha- may easily spring forth. Regina wrote: "I hope that with ota 'many', I have created a PAT that is non-specific enough to "deserve" being cross-referenced by wa-, at least theoretically." --But I guess that the usage of wa- is triggered by formal grammatical conditions, not semantical ones. Likewise, we can say: wichasha wan ktepi, "they killed some man" tuwa ktepi, "they killed somebody" wanji ktepi, "they killed (some)one" --but wa- cannot be used here too. Finally, talking about the productivity, I'd like to suggest the following thesis: While stand-alone verbs with a wa-plug almost always have some idiomatic shades of meaning, _most_ transitive verbs may take wa- in some compounds, like those V+V cases described in Regina's great article: wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot wa-khute chin - he wants to shoot wa-khul wayuphike - he's an expert in shooting, etc. Then what is the meaning of wicha-khute okihi wicha-khute chin wicha-khul wayuphike ? Best wishes, Constantine Chmielnicki From wablenica at mail.ru Tue Jan 6 04:47:50 2004 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Wablenica) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 07:47:50 +0300 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Rory, Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 3:16:19 AM, you wrote: RML> I'm wondering if the dictionary definitions given RML> are adequate to convey the full sense. My Lakhota RML> is very rusty, but I wonder if we couldn't distinguish RML> some of these as follows: RML> khute okihi - he's able to shoot (specific situation-- RML> the target is in front of him, and he RML> stands with the bow drawn.) RML> wa-khute okihi - he's able to shoot (generality-- RML> he has the necessary skills for RML> shooting.) RML> wicha-khute okihi - he's able to shoot them (either RML> specific situation or generality; RML> emphasis is on the transitivity RML> of the action.) --I'd like to know this too. Perhaps Regina and Violet could answer whether wicha- forms may mean generality too. Constantine From warr0120 at umn.edu Tue Jan 6 09:52:43 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:52:43 CST Subject: mircofilm digitization Message-ID: Hi all, Anyone who's interested in the digitized sources I've got can certainly get cds. Right now, no text is available. A brief list was in my last email. And all I can currently offer is plain images with out the web page navigation, except for Iapi Oaye, which is the first one complete in the new format (only for Internet Explorer 6.0 for pc). In the next few months I'll have the web pages functional again. Right now I'm converting everything from hardcoded html to xml, and creating better bibliographies. When that's done I'll bring in some of the full text versions and start asking people to share full text versions they have so they can be included. All the stuff I'm doing is open source and free, and I want it to eventually, once the infrastructure and programming is in place, to be a collaborative project. Like with the Dorsey film, I'd be happy to the digitization of the film to make the images available. I gladly welcome such challenges, and it would be much easier to get the film from one of you than going to Maryland or waiting many months to purchase an overpriced duplicate. And I can test the ocr process to see how well it works with that particular source (I'm somewhat sceptical about the quality of handwritten documents from microfilm). Ultimately I like to do digitization of images from whatever sources myself, or train people to do high quality transfer from microform or print to digital image. And then I'd like to do ocr work myself or train people there too. Then I want to put ocr results out there for other people to proof when they have time or interest, and continually offer updated versions based on whatever people get done. And once full text versions are available I'd like to do very detailed xml coding of them so they can be integrated into larger web-based datebases of linguistic and cultural data, e.g. so comparative dictionaries can be autmatically created depending on the sources you select, and searchable or sorted however you like. I hope some others find the possibilities of this stuff exciting. When you start using the kind of digitized materials I've been working with on my computer for the last two years, I think you'll all realize some things are really about to change. Pat From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 13:34:27 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 07:34:27 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <000701c3d3ce$c3d166b0$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mark, I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful finding aid. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Mark-Awakuni Swetland Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:59 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Aloha All: I thought I better chime in on the discussion. I had broached the topic with Brother John while visiting Boulder last week. This grew out of a question that I had posed last month to the NAA about current costs and options for copying the 8 JOD reels. I have a copy from the original... but have been thinking it might be useful to provide a copy up north to Omaha Nation Public School. I will let you know when the NAA responds to my question. The idea of getting this stuff off of a microfilm reader screen and into a computer is great. I am presuming (in my ignorance of the process) that someone could perform the transfer using a copy of the films (mine or John's or whomsoever's)... and not require access to the original film... or original documents???? Did any of you folks get a copy of the moderately useful finding aid that was delivered back to the NAA with the original reels? I typed it (no computer in those poverty days!). I can try scanning my copy into an attached file and send it to anyone who wants it. best uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Dorsey MicroFilm > I am liking this whole discussion and would be happy to contribute a few $$ > to the effort if it involves JOD's Osage slip file. Would there be any > problem getting access for scanning purposes? > Carolyn Q. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Leonard > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:29 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm > > > There are, indeed, services out there that will digitize the Dorsey > microfilms. The problem, thus far, has been the expense. Those service > companies aren't in it for the practice; the price comes real close to the > quarter per page you'd pay at your local public library. > > Jim Duncan and I had access to a microfilm copier and we copied a great deal > of Dorsey's Osage slip file. However, the copier was old. The paper was > expensive, made terrible copies, and it was painfully slow (over 1.5 minutes > per page). The copier finally died and was sent to the junk heap. > > Seems to me that scanning (to obtain image files) is the way to go. OCR, I > believe, is out of the question. OCR software sufficient to handle this task > would be cost prohibitive. I have a hunch the right scanner is now available > (at the right price) but I don't know enough about what would be required in > such equipment. > > I bet there's a technical department in a university somewhere that could > tell us. Anyone have access to a "scanning techno-guru" that could shed some > light on the subject? > > TML > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Koontz John E" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:02 AM > Subject: Re: Dorsey MicroFilm (fwd) > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Craig Kopris wrote: > > > Services go beyond just putting the image on cd; > > > companies will offer (for a greater fee) to clean up > > > the results as well. I avoided that "help", on the > > > assumption that the cleaners wouldn't recognize old > > > Jesuit handwritten diacritics as other than smudges. > > > Indexing can be added, as well. > > > > What kind of cleaning up was proposed? I assume that there was no > > question of OCR with handwriting, let alone old handwriting. The Dorsey > > materials range through handwriting - not old Jesuit, but obscure enough > > at times - and typescript with interpolated handwritten characters and > > diacritics. My understanding is that OCR even with pure typescript is > > also more or less infeasible, unless maybe with newer typefaces, and this > > was all done in the 1880s and 1890s. Anyway, I figured that images would > > be the best that could be done, and the only question is, what quality of > > image is good enough to make out the necessary details? > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Jan 6 15:08:21 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:08:21 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: 1) In an historical listing of family heads in "Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Standing Rock Agency, Fort Yates, North Dakota Roll 5A: Record of Rations Issued 1885 (http://www.primeau.org/StandingRock1885families.html) I found the following proper names: "Miniowicakte - Kill In the Water" (a) "Tiowicukte - Kill In the House" (b) 2) Buechel S.J. has in his dictionary: tiwicakte [thi'wic^hakte] - a murderer, to commit murder (c) tikte [thikte'] - to murder (d) and also tiokte [thio'kte] - to kill in the house, commit homicide (e) As it seems, (a) is _mni owicakte_ [mni-o'wicha-kte] or [mni-owi'cha-kte]??, (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing) Given that Dakotan namings very often refer to specific events/deeds in the past, I'm inclined to assume that the English renderings here are not specific enough. So, I'd translate (a) as: "(he) has killed them in (the) water" and (b) as: "(he) has killed them in the/a house" with _-wica-_ refering to specific animate 3.Pl objects (which, from context, most likely here have to be human <- enemies). With regard to (b), I'd still tend to read _-wica-_ as a reference to "enemies" (despite Buechel's pejorative denotation in (e) ): Given that Native names very often are given to honour their bearers, it would be hard to assume that in this case someone was named by the term "Murderer"). So, I'd like to imagine that (a) and (b) are 'normal' sentences following the topic-comment pattern TOPIC COMMENT mni owicakte ti (kin/wan) owicakte with the comment's wica-particle in its 'regular' function. With regard to (c) and (d), this might be different. With no locative indicated in the 'word', I'm getting the impression that it might be kind of a fossilized term with a former topic (ti) now incorporated in the comment sentence, not much unlike in expressions as _tii'un_ [thi-i'uN] [thi-i'yuN] (to do house-painting), where also from the word's stress put on the second syllable one might deduce that it's a comment-sentence: TOPIC COMMENT 0 tiwicakte 0 tikte Also, as it appears to me, the wica-part here seems to be different from that in the 'regular' examples above. As Buechel's entry seems to suggest, and Kostya has pointed out, it kind of indicates a nonspecific (generic) object, here, that also might be more narrow in its 'animate' meaning, namely referring to humans (wicasa?). These being my amateurish considerations on the context of "house-killing" (which - in Native society - apparably had been regarded/estimated in a way different from "war/battle-killing" and "hunt-killing"). But, maybe, it's all BS :( Best regards Alfred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Tue Jan 6 15:26:41 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:26:41 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Carolyn, Will do. If the scan is junk I'll send you a hard copy if you provide a mailing address. Sorry to the list. I couldn't figure out how to get around Carolyn's spam-blocker and communicate off-list. It could not digest my hyphenated name or something. Spam... isn't their a local Hawaiian joke in this somewhere? My wife would kill for a spam musubi about now. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: RE: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Hi Mark, > I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful finding aid. > Carolyn > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 6 17:15:38 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:15:38 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d469$7c812980$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: HI Mark, I'll be sure to get you through the Spamblocker on my end. Earthlink blocks virtually all spam, that's the good news. The bad news is I have to keep allowing people through which involves several steps and some time and I don't get to it everyday. Sorry. Meanwhile address is: 1807 Driver Road Big Spring TX 79720 Thanks, Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Mark-Awakuni Swetland Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:27 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Carolyn, Will do. If the scan is junk I'll send you a hard copy if you provide a mailing address. Sorry to the list. I couldn't figure out how to get around Carolyn's spam-blocker and communicate off-list. It could not digest my hyphenated name or something. Spam... isn't their a local Hawaiian joke in this somewhere? My wife would kill for a spam musubi about now. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: RE: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Hi Mark, > I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful finding aid. > Carolyn > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 6 17:31:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:31:45 -0700 Subject: animate _wa-_ In-Reply-To: <3FFACF65.9020708@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > (a) as: "(he) has killed them in (the) water" and > (b) as: "(he) has killed them in the/a house" I can't elucidate the rest, but specific references to "killing in a dwelling" and "killing in a stream" (perhaps with an indefinite "somebody" reading of wic^ha) strikes me as plausible in a name or even text, even if thi'wic^hakte is normally taken in an idiomatic sense of "murder, kill in a socially unacceptable context." I can recall specific instances of both being recounted in the Omaha-Ponca texts, e.g., a case where a party of Omahas pursuing a group of Dakotas came upon isolated Dakota tent at night and fired into it, aiming at the shadows on the walls, and another in which an enemy was killed in a struggle in a stream. I don't think, however, that there's any doubt about the idiom. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 6 19:29:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:29:03 -0700 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: <000001c3d397$c9995ee0$17ff16ac@whitman> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Hu Matthews wrote: > Another way of looking at it is to call it a partitive construction. aw? > ?ake (the surface of the earth) plus the postposition n. However, if ?ake > is a noun and n is the postposition, then we need to explain why there are > very few nouns that can be suffixed with a postposition. I don't really have an explanation for this, but it's true right across Siouan, as far as I know. For example, in Omaha-Ponca =di 'in' can be added to some nouns, sometimes with an additional inserted theme vowel, e.g., in ttia=di 'in (the) house' (or maybe it's tti=adi or just ttiadi). But in many cases it seems necessary to have an intervening article or demonstrative. The common more or less empty-seeming supporting element is e. I have the impression that things are rather similar in Dakotan, at least with the older (?), more initimately connecting postpositions, like =l. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jan 6 21:47:06 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:47:06 -0600 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hi Alfred! Welcome to the list, and thanks for your comments! I had a couple of thoughts on your post: > "Tiowicukte - Kill In the House" (b) >As it seems, > (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing) This might be a typo, as you say, but it might also be a case of an American English spelling convention sneaking in. Over here, the letter 'u' often represents a sound about half way between schwa and [a] as in 'father' or 'Vater', as in 'cut' or 'butter'. Some people call this sound schwa; most language orthographies would class it as a type of 'a' sound. An unaccented -a at the end of a word, as in Latin in'sula or puella usually seems to be pronounced with this sound. In American comic book orthography, an open syllable of this sound is commonly spelled "uh". I think the IPA symbol is an inverted 'v'. I suspect the Dakotan speaker didn't lower his jaw all all the way to full [a], so the English-thinking recorder may have heard this name as "Tee-oh-wee-chuck-tay", and failed to get all the vowels converted to proper Dakotan. > So, I'd like to imagine that (a) and (b) are 'normal' sentences following the topic-comment pattern > TOPIC COMMENT mni owicakte ti (kin/wan) owicakte with the comment's wica-particle in its 'regular' function. With regard to (c) and (d), this might be different. With no locative indicated in the 'word', I'm getting the impression that it might be kind of a fossilized term with a former topic (ti) now incorporated in the comment sentence, not much unlike in expressions as _tii'un_ [thi-i'uN] [thi-i'yuN] (to do house-painting), where also from the word's stress put on the second syllable one might deduce that it's a comment-sentence: TOPIC COMMENT 0 tiwicakte 0 tikte I'm not sure whether mni and ti qualify as topics here or not. They may; I'm just not sure. In any case, they aren't participants with the verb as either actors or objects; they function more as qualifiers of the overall action. Nouns can modify other nouns in MVS just as they do in English and German, with the modifying noun preceding the one modified; e.g. rail-road, steam-boat, etc. In MVS, they seem to be able to modify verbs just as freely. In English, this doesn't seem to be so acceptable, except in gerunds like the ones you listed: "house-killing", etc. (I think it works freely in German though, doesn't it? "Er hat ihnen hausumgebringt" ??) I think the difference between ti-kte and (I presume) ti-o-kte is probably the same as that between "house-killing" and "killing in a house" in English. The first qualifies the killing with a "house", which only means that the killing is distinguished by the fact that it involves a house. It might be that the killer catches the victim at or in a house, or it might mean that the killer slays his victims by picking up houses and hurling them at them. The second more specifically says that the killing occurs in a house. Given that hurling houses at people is improbable, both versions will probably be understood the same way by the hearers. Regards, Rory "Alfred W. T?ting" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Sent by: cc: owner-siouan at lists.c Subject: animate _wa-_ olorado.edu 01/06/2004 09:08 AM Please respond to siouan 1) In an historical listing of family heads in "Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Standing Rock Agency, Fort Yates, North Dakota Roll 5A: Record of Rations Issued 1885 (http://www.primeau.org/StandingRock1885families.html) I found the following proper names: "Miniowicakte - Kill In the Water" (a) "Tiowicukte - Kill In the House" (b) 2) Buechel S.J. has in his dictionary: tiwicakte [thi'wic^hakte] - a murderer, to commit murder (c) tikte [thikte'] - to murder (d) and also tiokte [thio'kte] - to kill in the house, commit homicide (e) As it seems, (a) is _mni owicakte_ [mni-o'wicha-kte] or [mni-owi'cha-kte]??, (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing) Given that Dakotan namings very often refer to specific events/deeds in the past, I'm inclined to assume that the English renderings here are not specific enough. So, I'd translate (a) as: "(he) has killed them in (the) water" and (b) as: "(he) has killed them in the/a house" with _-wica-_ refering to specific animate 3.Pl objects (which, from context, most likely here have to be human <- enemies). With regard to (b), I'd still tend to read _-wica-_ as a reference to "enemies" (despite Buechel's pejorative denotation in (e) ): Given that Native names very often are given to honour their bearers, it would be hard to assume that in this case someone was named by the term "Murderer"). So, I'd like to imagine that (a) and (b) are 'normal' sentences following the topic-comment pattern TOPIC COMMENT mni owicakte ti (kin/wan) owicakte with the comment's wica-particle in its 'regular' function. With regard to (c) and (d), this might be different. With no locative indicated in the 'word', I'm getting the impression that it might be kind of a fossilized term with a former topic (ti) now incorporated in the comment sentence, not much unlike in expressions as _tii'un_ [thi-i'uN] [thi-i'yuN] (to do house-painting), where also from the word's stress put on the second syllable one might deduce that it's a comment-sentence: TOPIC COMMENT 0 tiwicakte 0 tikte Also, as it appears to me, the wica-part here seems to be different from that in the 'regular' examples above. As Buechel's entry seems to suggest, and Kostya has pointed out, it kind of indicates a nonspecific (generic) object, here, that also might be more narrow in its 'animate' meaning, namely referring to humans (wicasa?). These being my amateurish considerations on the context of "house-killing" (which - in Native society - apparably had been regarded/estimated in a way different from "war/battle-killing" and "hunt-killing"). But, maybe, it's all BS :( Best regards Alfred From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jan 6 23:17:45 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:17:45 -0700 Subject: postpositions In-Reply-To: <3FF572F3.13758.74B012@localhost> Message-ID: Sorry to be so silent for the past couple of weeks -- I won't catch up with the "wa" discussion for a couple more weeks, either -- but I can tell you that Wichita has neither postpositions nor prepositions, just derivational morphology in the verb. There are no PPs, just locative arguments for the verbs. "I sat on the rock" would thus be literally "where the rock is, I sat-on-top". There is a verb I gloss 'to be a place' which you can use if you want the locative to be the predicate or if there is something weird about including the locative in the main verb. I have a little paper (very speculative, but kind of fun) on a possible way to relate Siouan and Caddoan on this subject. It's in Fabrice Cavoto (ed.), "The Linguist's Linguist: A collection of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer". Lincom Europa 2002. The printed title is "If Macro-Siouan is real, how will you explain this?" I think I intended that "is" to be "isn't", but it's too late for that now. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > Bruce > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 6 23:29:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:29:15 -0600 Subject: postpositions Message-ID: I'd love to read it. You may recall I did a brief comparison of Siouan/Catawban/Yuchi pronominals with one of the sets of Caddoan pronominals at the end of my Siouan Conference paper in Bloomington a few years back. If there's a Macro-Siouan, I think Caddoan may be the next twig up the tree. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "ROOD DAVID S" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: Re: postpositions > > Sorry to be so silent for the past couple of weeks -- I won't catch up > with the "wa" discussion for a couple more weeks, either -- but I can tell > you that Wichita has neither postpositions nor prepositions, just > derivational morphology in the verb. There are no PPs, just locative > arguments for the verbs. "I sat on the rock" would thus be literally > "where the rock is, I sat-on-top". There is a verb I gloss 'to be a > place' which you can use if you want the locative to be the predicate or > if there is something weird about including the locative in the main verb. > > I have a little paper (very speculative, but kind of fun) on a possible > way to relate Siouan and Caddoan on this subject. It's in Fabrice Cavoto > (ed.), "The Linguist's Linguist: A collection of papers in honour of > Alexis Manaster Ramer". Lincom Europa 2002. The printed title is "If > Macro-Siouan is real, how will you explain this?" I think I intended that > "is" to be "isn't", but it's too late for that now. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me whether postpositions rather than prepositions are > > general in Siouan-Caddoan. I have some sources on Crow, Omaha > > and Wichita, but they are not clear on that point. > > Bruce > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 7 14:25:20 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:25:20 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hello Rory and John, thanks for the welcome and taking the time to comment my post. I'll still have to ponder on it for a while. >>As it seems, (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing)<<<< >This might be a typo, as you say, but it might also be a case of an American English spelling convention sneaking in. Over here, the letter 'u' often represents a sound about half way between schwa and [a] as in 'father' or 'Vater', as in 'cut' or 'butter'. Some people call this sound schwa; most language orthographies would class it as a type of 'a' sound. An unaccented -a at the end of a word, as in Latin in'sula or puella usually seems to be pronounced with this sound. In American comic book orthography, an open syllable of this sound is commonly spelled "uh". I think the IPA symbol is an inverted 'v'. I suspect the Dakotan speaker didn't lower his jaw all all the way to full [a], so the English-thinking recorder may have heard this name as "Tee-oh-wee-chuck-tay", and failed to get all the vowels converted to proper Dakotan.<< Yes, you totally convinced me on that :-) (But there are real typos in the list, too, which nevertheless is an important, interesting and even somewhat touching historical document.) >I'm not sure whether mni and ti qualify as topics here or not. They may; I'm just not sure. In any case, they aren't participants with the verb as either actors or objects; they function more as qualifiers of the overall action. Nouns can modify other nouns in MVS just as they do in English and German, with the modifying noun preceding the one modified; e.g. rail-road, steam-boat, etc. In MVS, they seem to be able to modify verbs just as freely. In English, this doesn't seem to be so acceptable, except in gerunds like the ones you listed: "house-killing", etc. (I think it works freely in German though, doesn't it? "Er hat ihnen hausumgebringt" ??)<< I'm not a linguist of German language either - rather than an aged native 'speaker' ;-), yet, thinking it over, I can say that, not unlike in Dakota, all this stuff is higly idiomatic also in German (and especially with regard to verbal expressions!). Rendering your nice sentence to be grammatical (I remember Steven Pinker's examples like 'bringed'), as "er hat sie hausumgebracht", it still isn't possible to say that! The only German equivalence in structure to Lakota _tikte_ etc. coming to my mind is 'hausschlachten', more commonly used as nominal '(die) Hausschlachtung' (lit. about: to home-slaughter). It's a comparably old - hence familiar! - term for the butcher coming to the farm to kill the cattle there instead of bringing it to the slaughter house. So, the following utterances are possible: - Heute ist bei uns Hausschlachtung. - Unser Vieh wird nur hausgeschlachtet. - Wir verkaufen hausgeschlachtete Ware. - Morgen werden wir hausschlachten. - Morgen schlachten wir haus (??? although grammatical, yet sounding pretty unfamiliar!) On the other hand, there are no problems with an expression comparable from its structure: Cf. _radfahren_ (new orthography: Rad fahren): to bicycle/cycle/bike (lit.: to bicycle-drive): - Ich liebe das Radfahren (I love cycling) - Wollen wir heute radfahren? (Will we bicycle today?) - Ich fahre heute nicht rad/Rad. (I don't bicycle today) - no problem! Just one more example of how idiomatic all this can be: fernsehen, das Fernsehen, der Fernseher (to watch TV or to teleview; TV; TV (set), lit.: 'to far-see', 'the far-seeing', 'the far-seer'): - Ich will fernsehen (I want to watch TV) - Ich fernsehe (I watch TV) - Ich schaue Fernsehen (lit.: "I look/watch television"), and even, pretty coll. - Ich tu fernsehschauen (lit.: "I do far-see-look"). All this is possible because familiar through daily use! Yet, this is different with a very similar calque - used bureaucratically, but hardly accepted by the speakers: '(der) Fernsprecher' and 'fernsprechen' (telephone/to phone, lit.: 'far-speaker', 'to far-speak'). One never will hear sentences like: "Bitte sei ruhig, ich spreche gerade fern!" (Please be quiet, I'm just doing a phone call!), but instead "... ich telefoniere gerade!" Interestingly, this is similar also e.g. in Hungarian with a calque exactly along this line: 'telephone' here is _t?volbesz?l?_, yet most likely nobody would ever say "*(?n) t?volbesz?lek..." but simply "telefon?lok majd veled" (I'll ring you up). So, language gets coined, polished - and, hence, familiar(!) only through daily use. I feel that's what makes it so hard to judge and distinguish regular from idiomatic forms from outside a language community. It's even more difficult with old tongues of oral tradition like the Native American ones. But whom do I tell this! ;-) I apologize for this little digression! Best regards Alfred From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed Jan 7 15:39:20 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:39:20 -0500 Subject: Bringing down the house? (animate wa-) In-Reply-To: <3FFC16D0.3020102@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred?s examples of hausschlacten and radfahren, although they appear to have the same structure, are actually different. Schlachten and fahren are both two-place predicates. In radfahren, one place is taken by Rad, the NP ?bicycle?, object of fahren, so in ?ich fahre Rad, both arguments are overt. In hausschlacten, haus- is not nominal but adverbial - it simply states where the Schlactung will occur. In ?Morgen werden wir hausschlacten?, the object is implied, not overt. If you said, ?Wir hausschlacten unser Vieh? then both arguments (wir, Vieh) are visible, and you see that ?haus-? isn?t one of them! This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *morgen schlacten wir haus. Linda Quoting "\"Alfred W. T?ting\"" : > Hello Rory and John, > > thanks for the welcome and taking the time to comment my post. I'll > still have to ponder on it for a while. > > > >>As it seems, > (b) tiowicakte [thi-o'wicha-kte] or [thi-owi'cha-kte ??] (*_wicu_ looks > like a typo, as there are quite some mistakes in the listing)<<<< > > >This might be a typo, as you say, but it might also be a > case of an American English spelling convention sneaking > in. Over here, the letter 'u' often represents a sound > about half way between schwa and [a] as in 'father' or > 'Vater', as in 'cut' or 'butter'. Some people call this > sound schwa; most language orthographies would class it > as a type of 'a' sound. An unaccented -a at the end of > a word, as in Latin in'sula or puella usually seems to > be pronounced with this sound. In American comic book > orthography, an open syllable of this sound is commonly > spelled "uh". I think the IPA symbol is an inverted 'v'. > I suspect the Dakotan speaker didn't lower his jaw all > all the way to full [a], so the English-thinking recorder > may have heard this name as "Tee-oh-wee-chuck-tay", and > failed to get all the vowels converted to proper Dakotan.<< > > Yes, you totally convinced me on that :-) (But there are real typos in > the list, too, which nevertheless is an important, interesting and even > somewhat touching historical document.) > > > >I'm not sure whether mni and ti qualify as topics here or > not. They may; I'm just not sure. In any case, they aren't > participants with the verb as either actors or objects; they > function more as qualifiers of the overall action. Nouns > can modify other nouns in MVS just as they do in English and > German, with the modifying noun preceding the one modified; > e.g. rail-road, steam-boat, etc. In MVS, they seem to be > able to modify verbs just as freely. In English, this doesn't > seem to be so acceptable, except in gerunds like the ones you > listed: "house-killing", etc. (I think it works freely in > German though, doesn't it? "Er hat ihnen hausumgebringt" ??)<< > > I'm not a linguist of German language either - rather than an aged > native 'speaker' ;-), yet, thinking it over, I can say that, not unlike > in Dakota, all this stuff is higly idiomatic also in German (and > especially with regard to verbal expressions!). Rendering your nice > sentence to be grammatical (I remember Steven Pinker's examples like > 'bringed'), as "er hat sie hausumgebracht", it still isn't possible to > say that! The only German equivalence in structure to Lakota _tikte_ > etc. coming to my mind is 'hausschlachten', more commonly used as > nominal '(die) Hausschlachtung' (lit. about: to home-slaughter). It's a > comparably old - hence familiar! - term for the butcher coming to the > farm to kill the cattle there instead of bringing it to the slaughter > house. So, the following utterances are possible: > > - Heute ist bei uns Hausschlachtung. > - Unser Vieh wird nur hausgeschlachtet. > - Wir verkaufen hausgeschlachtete Ware. > - Morgen werden wir hausschlachten. > > - Morgen schlachten wir haus (??? although grammatical, yet sounding > pretty unfamiliar!) > > On the other hand, there are no problems with an expression comparable > from its structure: > > Cf. _radfahren_ (new orthography: Rad fahren): to bicycle/cycle/bike > (lit.: to bicycle-drive): > > - Ich liebe das Radfahren (I love cycling) > - Wollen wir heute radfahren? (Will we bicycle today?) > - Ich fahre heute nicht rad/Rad. (I don't bicycle today) - no problem! > > Just one more example of how idiomatic all this can be: > > fernsehen, das Fernsehen, der Fernseher (to watch TV or to teleview; > TV; TV (set), lit.: 'to far-see', 'the far-seeing', 'the far-seer'): > > - Ich will fernsehen (I want to watch TV) > - Ich fernsehe (I watch TV) > - Ich schaue Fernsehen (lit.: "I look/watch television"), and even, > pretty coll. > - Ich tu fernsehschauen (lit.: "I do far-see-look"). > > All this is possible because familiar through daily use! > > Yet, this is different with a very similar calque - used > bureaucratically, but hardly accepted by the speakers: > > '(der) Fernsprecher' and 'fernsprechen' (telephone/to phone, lit.: > 'far-speaker', 'to far-speak'). One never will hear sentences like: > > "Bitte sei ruhig, ich spreche gerade fern!" (Please be quiet, I'm just > doing a phone call!), but instead "... ich telefoniere gerade!" > > Interestingly, this is similar also e.g. in Hungarian with a calque > exactly along this line: 'telephone' here is _t?volbesz?l?_, yet most > likely nobody would ever say "*(?n) t?volbesz?lek..." but simply > "telefon?lok majd veled" (I'll ring you up). > > So, language gets coined, polished - and, hence, familiar(!) only > through daily use. I feel that's what makes it so hard to judge and > distinguish regular from idiomatic forms from outside a language > community. It's even more difficult with old tongues of oral tradition > like the Native American ones. But whom do I tell this! ;-) > > I apologize for this little digression! > > Best regards > > Alfred > > > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jan 7 16:06:05 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:06:05 -0600 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye Message-ID: Pat: How can I see the rest of the Iapi Oaye newspaper? I was able to open the four examples from 1871. Louie From warr0120 at umn.edu Wed Jan 7 17:00:38 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:00:38 CST Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye Message-ID: On 7 Jan 2004, Louis Garcia wrote: > > Pat: > How can I see the rest of the Iapi Oaye newspaper? > I was able to open the four examples from 1871. > Louie Louie and others, You can give me your address and I'll send you the four cds. And I realized I can fit the images from all the other public domain Dakota sources I've scanned onto one cd, so I'll send that too. Only Iapi Oaye has a web page interface now, the others are just images sitting in folders waiting for me to give them back their web pages. And again, the Iapi Oaye web pages only work in Internet Explorer 6.0, so look under "Help > About Internet Explorer" to check your "Version". Not that it's hard to find a computer with IE these days. Actually I'm going for a rescheduled meeting this afternoon at the Minnesota Historical Society because last time I went down there to show them the cds they only had IE 5.5 on all their computers and nothing worked. That was a good lesson for me. But hopefully working with them I can eventually digitize archival materials for them (what archives has enough people or funding to do that now? MHS has a $50,000 scanner that nobody uses!) and come out with much better quality for Iapi Oaye from originals than I got from microform. And hopefully they'd want to host digital versions of their own holdings on their own website for everyone's benefit. In the meantime, though, this is a pretty fancy thing. I think these cds are the most complete collection out there for Iapi Oaye. Neither the fiche or film versions I used to piece it together were complete, but complemented each other, leaving out fewer than ten missing pages from 3,100. Actually, the catalog listing at institutions that have the microfiche version don't even mention that it's missing 1916-1924! I'm sure nobody ever checked. And that microfiche version was done by a commcercial transfer company, who apparently didn't tell their customer they were missing 358 images. But they did at least film a note that said "issues missing". If anyone is interested in hosting the files online I'd be thrilled. It'd be much easier for everyone to burn their own cds or save them on their hard drive. The files take up about 2.5GB. There's also another GB of other public domain materials, plus a couple of GB of Ojibwe public domain materials that anyone could put online, and the web pages for all those will soon be available. Eventually I hope to negotiate a multi-institution mirrored site online for the materials. But that's a couple years off. I have a lot more parts of the project to have fully functional before I propose that, so people can see the scope of what this is going to be. Pat From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jan 7 18:27:27 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:27:27 -0600 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye reply Message-ID: Pat: Please send the cd's to Louis Garcia Cankdeska Cikana Community College P.O. Box 269 Ft. Totten, ND 58335 Pidamaya yedo. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 7 19:06:05 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:06:05 +0100 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Linda, >Alfred?s examples of hausschlachten and radfahren, although they appear to have the same structure, are actually different. Schlachten and fahren are both two-place predicates. In radfahren, one place is taken by Rad, the NP ?bicycle?, object of fahren, so in ?ich fahre Rad, both arguments are overt. In hausschlachten, haus- is not nominal but adverbial - it simply states where the Schlachtung will occur. In ?Morgen werden wir hausschlachten?, the object is implied, not overt. If you said, ?Wir hausschlachten unser Vieh? then both arguments (wir, Vieh) are visible, and you see that ?haus-? isn?t one of them! This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *morgen schlachten wir haus.<< thank you for shedding some light on this issue, yet, I'm only half convinced: Other than with _schlachten_, I wouldn't be sure to regard _(rad-)fahren_ as a two-place predicate. Not unlike _fahren_ (ich fahre...), it seems to appear as a one-place one, since understood as _ich fahre *mit* einem Rad_ rather than _ich fahre das/ein Rad_ (the part 'rad' seems to be instrumental and maybe not a direct object 'compounded' with the verb). To me, 'haus-' and 'rad-' both seem to be comparable with 'ti-' of, say, _tikte_ or _tii'un_ denoting location, means etc. (in German, adverbial, in Lakota, maybe a - former - topic incorporated in the comment's one-word sentence). Plz compare: fahren (intransitive: ich fahre), schlachten (transitive: ich schlachte etw.) radfahren (still intransitive + instrument) heimfahren (to drive home: intransitive + destination) hausschlachten (still transitive + location) And, I don't think that "und morgen schlachten wir haus" actually is ungrammatical - just bloody unfamiliar to hear! :-) Nevertheless, I think there's something special with compound verbs like 'radfahren', 'autofahren': Ich fahre rad/Rad, ...fahre auto/Auto and(!) 'heimfahren': "ich fahre heim", but not "ich heimfahre" (although _heim_ is NOT a direct object!) On the other hand, your point seems to be supported by the new orthographic rules cf. "Rad fahren", "Auto fahren" (which might express a moreorless subconscious understanding among great parts of the speakers of these particles denoting a direct object). Out of my pretty naive angle, Lakota and German are having quite a couple of common traits. Best regards Alfred From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 7 19:11:22 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:11:22 -0600 Subject: animate _wa-_ Message-ID: Hello Alfred, > Yes, you totally convinced me on that :-) (But there are real typos in > the list, too, which nevertheless is an important, interesting and even > somewhat touching historical document.) Sorry for the overkill. I got carried away, and I actually wasn't too clear on how widespread the sound was even in English. > I'm not a linguist of German language either - rather than an aged > native 'speaker' ;-), Better yet! > yet, thinking it over, I can say that, not unlike > in Dakota, all this stuff is higly idiomatic also in German (and > especially with regard to verbal expressions!). Rendering your nice > sentence to be grammatical (I remember Steven Pinker's examples like > 'bringed'), as "er hat sie hausumgebracht", Ouch! I was afraid I was going to get dinged on that! I had no references at hand, and somehow it crept into my mind that German considered the act of killing somebody to be dative. Thanks for setting me straight; it seems it is accusative, as expected! > it still isn't possible to > say that! The only German equivalence in structure to Lakota _tikte_ > etc. coming to my mind is 'hausschlachten', more commonly used as > nominal '(die) Hausschlachtung' (lit. about: to home-slaughter). It's a > comparably old - hence familiar! - term for the butcher coming to the > farm to kill the cattle there instead of bringing it to the slaughter > house. So, the following utterances are possible: [numerous examples of valid, invalid, and dubious noun-modifying-verb possibilities in German and Hungarian] Alright, I guess it isn't completely free in German either, though it still looks like it's a little more used than in English. A complicating factor occurs to me. In English, we can fairly freely use a noun to modify another noun to get a noun result. We can also easily coin a verb from a noun without any alteration to the original word. rail + road => railroad noun + noun => noun (rail describes the kind of road) railroad =C> railroad noun =C> verb (railroad, v. to push a measure through without proper discussion.) Then what about 'ice-skate', used as a verb? Is this an English example of modifying a verb with a noun, or is it noun modifying noun to get the noun 'ice-skate', then converted into the verb of what one does with them? In any case, your point about these terms being idiomatic is well taken. Some combinations are pretty free; others can occur, but only in traditional combinations. In English, and I think in German and MVS, noun + noun modification is fairly free: if I wanted to describe the (improbable) concept of a class of desks that are specifically used in forests, I could immediately speak of forest desks, and this would be quite acceptable. But it would not be acceptable for me to say that I am going to forest view, though I could say that I am going to ice skate. So what is the situation in Siouan? If I can say ti-kte, 'house-kill', and mni-kte, 'water-kill', are these idiomatic, or can I freely substitute any other semantically reasonable noun for ti and mni? Could I freely say 'forest-kill', 'hearth-kill', 'bed-kill', 'prairie-kill', 'hill-kill', 'snowdrift-kill', or anything similar, as might be appropriate? Best regards, Rory From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 7 19:51:07 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:51:07 -0500 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d469$7c812980$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: Mark, Hey! I'd like a copy of this moderately useful finding aid & I can print a copy for the center, too. Good to talk to you today!! Thanks, Ardis Quoting Mark-Awakuni Swetland : > Carolyn, > Will do. If the scan is junk I'll send you a hard copy if you provide > a > mailing address. > > Sorry to the list. I couldn't figure out how to get around Carolyn's > spam-blocker and communicate off-list. It could not digest my > hyphenated > name or something. Spam... isn't their a local Hawaiian joke in this > somewhere? My wife would kill for a spam musubi about now. > uthixide > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > University of Nebraska > Anthropology/Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies > Bessey Hall 132 > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > 402-472-3455 > FAX 402-472-9642 > mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Q." > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:34 AM > Subject: RE: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > > > > Hi Mark, > > I'd be interested in having a copy of your moderately useful > finding aid. > > Carolyn > > > > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 7 19:57:55 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:57:55 -0600 Subject: Bringing down the house? (animate wa-) Message-ID: Linda, > Alfred?s examples of hausschlacten and radfahren, although they appear to have > the same structure, are actually different. Schlachten and fahren are both > two-place predicates. In radfahren, one place is taken by Rad, the NP ?bicycle?, > object of fahren, so in ?ich fahre Rad, both arguments are overt. In > hausschlacten, haus- is not nominal but adverbial - it simply states where the > Schlactung will occur. In ?Morgen werden wir hausschlacten?, the object is > implied, not overt. If you said, ?Wir hausschlacten unser Vieh? then both > arguments (wir, Vieh) are visible, and you see that ?haus-? isn?t one of them! > This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *morgen schlacten wir haus. Just to make sure I'm up to speed on your terminology, could you confirm the meaning of "two-place predicate"? Does that just mean a verb that takes two arguments, typically subject/agent and object? Thanks! Rory From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Wed Jan 7 20:36:35 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:36:35 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Aloha Ardis: You bet. I'll drop a copy in the mail today. Good talking with you! Stop in if you get to Lincoln anytime. uthixide mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:51 PM Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Mark, > Hey! I'd like a copy of this moderately useful finding aid & I can > print a copy for the center, too. > Good to talk to you today!! > Thanks, > Ardis From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 7 20:49:42 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:49:42 -0600 Subject: Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would contribute his financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw dictionaries and wouldn't need those reels.) Bob From heike.boedeker at netcologne.de Wed Jan 7 20:45:32 2004 From: heike.boedeker at netcologne.de (Heike =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6deker?=) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:45:32 +0100 Subject: Incorporation (was: Re: animate _wa-_) In-Reply-To: <3FFC589D.7040308@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 7 21:57:00 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:57:00 -0600 Subject: Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: Bob wrote: > If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, > converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would contribute his > financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw dictionaries > and wouldn't need those reels.) Ditto here, and also for the Kansa, Quapaw and Osage material, which I don't have. Rory From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 7 22:04:29 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:04:29 -0500 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye In-Reply-To: <200401071700.i07H0cOu031037@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Pat, Hi. I'm the SSILA (ssila.org) website manager. What exactly are the requirements of the host site you need? (How big, software, hardware etc.) What kind of interface would you expect and how often would things change if ever? I am not in a position to offer the room as I just manage the site and the exec committee would have to discuss it, but I'm curious and might be able to help somehow. Regards, Ardis Eschenberg Nebraska Indian COmmunity College UmoNhoN Nation Public School Univ. at Buffalo SSILA From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 7 22:20:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:20:20 -0700 Subject: Incorporation (was: Re: animate _wa-_) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040107211959.00a09220@pop3.netcologne.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Heike B?deker wrote: > Well, how the orthography reform came into being was a very dubious > process which had a lot to do with politics, but less so with linguistic > insights, not to speak of a concern for folk linguistics. Ironically, > these rules have been criticized exactly because they completely ignore > that German does have incorporation. So does English, though to a different extent. One of the most difficult spelling problems in English is determining how to write given compound properly, as a single, a hyphenated form, or as two words. It doesn't make any difference at all what the intonation pattern (or your instincts) might be, you have to follow the dictionary or some equally arbitrary organization or profession-specific set of rules. From voorhis at westman.wave.ca Wed Jan 7 22:53:03 2004 From: voorhis at westman.wave.ca (voorhis at westman.wave.ca) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:53:03 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > ... If anyone ever made a table of contents for > the published Lipkind Winnebago grammar, that would be useful, too, by the > way! I compiled the following nearly 40 years ago: Paul Winnebago Grammar, William Lipkind, Morningside Heights, New York, King's Crown Press, 1945 CONTENTS I. Phonology p. 1 1 - 4. Consonants 5 - 6. Vowels p. 2 7. The Syllable p. 4 8. Duration 9. Accent p. 5 10 - 19. Phonetic Processes p. 6 II. Morphology p. 12 20. Grammatical Processes 21. Grammatical Categories 22. Composition of Stems p. 13 The Verb p. 14 23. Verbal Complex 24. Locative Prefixes p. 15 25. Modal Prefix p. 17 26 - 27. Instrumental Prefixes 28. Verb Classes p. 21 Pronouns p. 22 29. First Class 30. Second Class p. 23 31. Contractions with Prefixes p. 25 32. Indirect Object p. 28 33. Reflexives 34. Emphatic Personal Pronouns p. 28 35. Infixed Pronouns p. 30 36. Possession p. 31 37. Verbal Suffixes p. 32 38 - 46. Final Suffixes p. 33 47 - 65. Adverbial Suffixes p. 36 66 - 76. Subordinating Suffixes p. 40 77 - 78. Verbs of Going and Coming p. 44 79 - 80. Verbal Auxiliaries p. 45 81. Reduplication p. 46 82. Sound Symbolism p. 47 83. The Noun p. 49 84 - 92. Nominal Suffixes 93 - 95. Demonstratives p. 52 96. Interrogative Pronouns and Adverbs p. 54 97. Numerals p. 55 98. Interjections 99. Word Order p. 56 Text p. 58 From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jan 8 02:17:21 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:17:21 -0600 Subject: Pat Warren -Iapi Oaye Message-ID: Pat: Someone, I believe, Carolyn, was asking about doing other languages, like Osage. Does your time permit you to consider languages other than Dakota/ Omaha-Ponca? If so, what would be the cost per microfilm frame? Jimm From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jan 8 02:54:00 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:54:00 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Message-ID: Is it still available, perhaps as a reprint somewhere? Is this the best and most recent Winn/ Hochank grammar? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid > Koontz John E wrote: > > ... If anyone ever made a table of contents for > > the published Lipkind Winnebago grammar, that would be useful, too, by the > > way! > > I compiled the following nearly 40 years ago: > Paul > > Winnebago Grammar, William Lipkind, Morningside Heights, New York, > King's Crown Press, 1945 > > CONTENTS > > I. Phonology p. 1 > 1 - 4. Consonants > 5 - 6. Vowels p. 2 > 7. The Syllable p. 4 > 8. Duration > 9. Accent p. 5 > 10 - 19. Phonetic Processes p. 6 > > II. Morphology p. 12 > 20. Grammatical Processes > 21. Grammatical Categories > 22. Composition of Stems p. 13 > > The Verb p. 14 > 23. Verbal Complex > 24. Locative Prefixes p. 15 > 25. Modal Prefix p. 17 > 26 - 27. Instrumental Prefixes > 28. Verb Classes p. 21 > > Pronouns p. 22 > 29. First Class > 30. Second Class p. 23 > > 31. Contractions with Prefixes p. 25 > 32. Indirect Object p. 28 > 33. Reflexives > 34. Emphatic Personal Pronouns p. 28 > 35. Infixed Pronouns p. 30 > 36. Possession p. 31 > 37. Verbal Suffixes p. 32 > 38 - 46. Final Suffixes p. 33 > 47 - 65. Adverbial Suffixes p. 36 > 66 - 76. Subordinating Suffixes p. 40 > 77 - 78. Verbs of Going and Coming p. 44 > 79 - 80. Verbal Auxiliaries p. 45 > 81. Reduplication p. 46 > 82. Sound Symbolism p. 47 > 83. The Noun p. 49 > 84 - 92. Nominal Suffixes > 93 - 95. Demonstratives p. 52 > 96. Interrogative Pronouns and Adverbs p. 54 > 97. Numerals p. 55 > 98. Interjections > 99. Word Order p. 56 > Text p. 58 > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Thu Jan 8 04:48:07 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:48:07 CST Subject: other languages? cost? Message-ID: On 7 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > Pat: > Someone, I believe, Carolyn, was asking about doing other languages, like > Osage. Does your time permit you to consider languages other than Dakota/ > Omaha-Ponca? If so, what would be the cost per microfilm frame? > Jimm Hey Jimm, Short answer: Yes, I'm open to working on anything. Even more so if it's related to something I'm already working on. Cost, zero. This work is too important to involve money. The commitment has to come from personal motivation or it'll be like other great ideas: when the funding runs out so does the interest in doing the work. Long (winded) answer: Yes, my time permits going in any direction. I'm focusing on Dakota and Ojibwe materials because I was learning those two languages at the U of MN and realized the situation as far as written materials to help learners the situation was sad. So my original goal two years ago was to get everything on or in the language and culture gathered together so anyone could have access to it. But this situation is true for most languages. My interests are now more in developing the overall program as a replicable, cooperative venture, and in broadening the application of the kind of digitization and linking together of texts I'm doing. For example the last few months I focused on scanning materials in Italian, German, and French on Somali and Tigrinya, two east african languages that are spoken a lot around the Twin Cities, since I also want to spend a good amount of my time learning the languages that are used where I live, which was a major reason for wanting to learn Dakota and Ojibwe. I'm totally open to working on just about anything. Anything in Siouan or Algonquian languages is an easy sell to me. I would love to work on Osage materials. I really enjoy what I'm doing, except for some of the programming, but that'll be less time-consuming soon. So if people have materials they want digitized, let's get on it! After I finish the bulk of the initial programming over the next couple of months and can focus on the digitization itself, I see the following process emerging: I can focus on the scanning of materials and the training of ocr software to work with the different typefaces and quality levels, then I can post ocr results for anyone to proof who's interested, then I can do the more detailed data coding so texts can be combined and farmed. And there's the potential for getting others set up to do any of this independently. It depends on how much you want to and are able to commit. At the Minnesota Historical Society today we talked about how it's great that I've got these cds of images of Iapi Oaye, and that it's possibly the most complete collection around, but that it'll be much more important as a text document (and for many sources, like the innumerable slightly differing versions of bibles and prayer books in native languages, may only have value as full text data), and eventually as a highly detailed coded database file that can be integrated with dictionaries, grammars, ethnographies, histories, etc. Now, it's a big task to proof 70 years worth of a monthly newspaper, but once the scanning is done and the ocr is run, if there are several people working on different parts of it it can really move along. The project I've got going is at its core an open source, volunteer project. I don't want any money involved with it. Much of the equipment I use is public, and the cost is as close to zero as it can get. Just time. But it's good work, and it's hard to avoid learning some Dakota when you proof a whole dictionary. You get really familiar with the materials and their content in doing this work, and that's a huge reward for me, plus then I can make all this work available to others, and create a way for lots of people to mesh their efforts together and make everyone's research time more productive and increase the quality of the work. Just imagine having the Siouan Languages List linked to all this, so every time you make a citation from some source your email would link right to it. Or at least getting everyone access to the same materials would make it that much more useful when people share questions and insights. So like I said about the Dorsey film, if I have it my hands I can scan it. Not in a day or two, probably four or five months just for scanning and a few more to process the images. If you have any other sources that are really important to get scanned, let me know. The interlibrary loan services here are great, and if materials are rare, just get em to me and I can do the work. Eventually I'll have a user's guide for the whole project so anyone can see all the equipment I use, my standards, my processing techniques, how I code data and program the web interface, etc., so anyone can do the same kind of thing without the two year development investment. Pat From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 11:52:42 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:52:42 -0000 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: <20031219204219.5977.qmail@web40006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Another one like wamakhas^kan 'animal' is wamnitu 'whale' presumably 'thing being in the water', also wablus^ka 'insect', 'small thing' possibly and waglula 'worm' though I can't think of any derivation. Bruce > > wa-makha-s^kaN > WA-earth-move.ITR > 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)', > > we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different way of analyzing this > form? > > Regina > > > > Notice that Dhegiha does allow wa with animate reference. I was > > momentarily taken aback by Regina's comment yesterday that Dakotan wa was > > necessarily inanimate, because of that. Somehow I had always assumed that > > wa could have a non-specific animate reference, too. Would a Dakotan > > nominalization require wic^ha- or something like that if the inspecified > > argument was animate? > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 11:55:53 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:55:53 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <1071963130.3fe4dbfa96d3c@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: The wa-,in waphata could be the instrumental wa- 'by use of a knife' Bruce > > Regarding the following: > > > h? thok?ya ptebl?s^ka ki wich?-kte-pi > > that first cattle DEF 3PL.PAT-kill-PL > > > > na wa-ph?ta-pi > > and WA-butcher-PL > > 'first they killed the cows and butchered them' > > > > Ptebl?s^ka 'cattle' is the implied referent of wa- in > > wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'. But since the > > (basically animate) cattle are already dead when being > > butchered, does wa- still count as an animate referent > > in wa-phata-pi 'they butchered them'? Similarly, the > > following example raises the question of whether > > plants or plant parts qualify as animate or not. > > I would have expected wicha-phata-pi rather than wa-phata. Could the sentence > mean something like, ?they killed the cows and then they did some butchering?? > > > > Linda > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 12:15:14 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:15:14 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <001001c3c966$bb01cb50$08b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Isn't wakte a rather specialized usage meaning 'triumph in war' as in wakte gli 'he came home in triumph' or S^ahiyela iwakte glipi 'they came home in triumph after a war with the Cheyenne' ie 'the beat the Cheyenne'. I suppose it still must be thought to have an animate patient though. Bruce Date sent: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:08:44 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "R. Rankin" To: Subject: Re: animate wa- > How might one say "There was a lot of killing in > the war/slaughter." ?? I suppose the PP and > 'many' would be different, but I'd expect to see > the WA- sentences become grammatical with that > meaning. > > Or maybe not. > > > (2) *okichize el ota wa-kte-pi > > war in many WA-kill-PL > > 'many were killed in the war' > > > (4) *owichakte el ota wa-kte-pi > > slaughter in many WA-kill-PL > > 'many were killed in the slaughter' > > Bob > > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 12:32:23 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:32:23 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John I believe thie verb thikte can take an object like wichas^a wan thikte 'he murdered a man (not as in warfare)' Bruce Date sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:50:52 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: animate wa- > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > > in the spot, ... > > Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized > for their "indefinite object" form or forms? > > JEK > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Jan 8 12:41:02 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:41:02 -0000 Subject: Lakota wa- 'variety object' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Bruce Date sent: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:36:59 -0600 Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: "CATCHES VIOLET" To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object' > > > Iyopxeya-to trade or exchange goods or to sell something > iyopxeya-to admonish another or to whip with words (exaggeration) > wiyopxeye-to sell something not trade, but to sell to get money vs iyopxeye > to exchange goods. > supposedly, according to our grandparents most words had two or three > meanings and we have to know how to use them, so when they sound the same we > should be able to distinguish as above... > hope that helps > violet, miye > > > > >From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk > >Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > >Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object' > >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:26:44 -0000 > > > >While we are on this subject, does anyone have an explanation for the > >fact that in Lakota iyopheya seems to mean 'to reproach, scold' and > >wiyopheya means 'to sell'. Is there a semantic connection or is this a > >coincidence. Or is my data wrong? Any help forthcoming? > >Bruce > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet > access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jan 8 23:04:47 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:04:47 +0100 Subject: Incorporation (was: Re: animate _wa-_) Message-ID: >>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Heike B?deker wrote: Well, how the orthography reform came into being was a very dubious process which had a lot to do with politics, but less so with linguistic insights, not to speak of a concern for folk linguistics. Ironically, these rules have been criticized exactly because they completely ignore that German does have incorporation.<<<< >So does English, though to a different extent. One of the most difficult spelling problems in English is determining how to write given compound properly, as a single, a hyphenated form, or as two words. It doesn't make any difference at all what the intonation pattern (or your instincts) might be, you have to follow the dictionary or some equally arbitrary organization or profession-specific set of rules.<< I heartfelt can't but agree with Heike, be it on most of the (pretty nonsensical) rules of so-called German 'Orthografiereform', be it the fact that German too has incorporation! As for building compounds in German and English (also mentioned by Rory), I've been reflecting about it, coming to a - maybe preliminary - conclusion that (at least in German) this is highly idiomatic due to historical reasons. Basically, there seem to be three ways to form compounds: noun-sg.+noun (Kuhjunge/cowboy; Kuhmist/cow dung), noun-pl.+noun (Pferdemist/horse manure), noun-sg. genitive (Feindesliebe/love for enemy/enemies; Schweinsbraten/roast pork; Rindsroulade/roll of beef). One has to recognizes that in modern coinages compounds based on genitival forms no longer seem to be productive E.g. 'Schweinsbraten' today is regarded as a Southern German variant (which actually is more conservative in many regards) and widely replaced by 'Schweinebraten' Same with 'Rindsroulade' where my online dictionary was asking back: "Did you mean 'Rinderroulade'? ;-) So, the genitive forms in so-called High German are mostly traditionally coined like 'Windsbraut', 'Meeres-/ Waldesrauschen'/about: brawl of the sea/ wood's rustling etc. It is quite impossible to 'calculate' the correct compounds by using the rules - one's got to have the forms stored in memory (not unlike the different forms of irregular past tense in English). I've the impression that it's somewhat comparable with Dakotan noun + 'adjective' forms (e.g. sunkawakan waste wan bluha vs. wicahpi wan kinyan ca wawanyanke): the rules of grammar are correct but don't help - one simply's got to know from memory which topics are 'felt' as fix compounds and which ones still as topics plus kind of dependent clause that has need of a conjunction using _ca_). Kind regards Alfred Best regards Alfred From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 04:42:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:42:38 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: <3FFD448A.5749.C738BB@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Another one like wamakhas^kan 'animal' is wamnitu 'whale' presumably > 'thing being in the water', also wablus^ka 'insect', 'small thing' > possibly and waglula 'worm' though I can't think of any derivation. Wamnitu is a little different in structure (wa-NOUN-POSTPOSITION) compared with wamakhaNs^kaN (wa-NOUN-V.ACTIVE), though we can view POSTPOSITIONS as verbs of a sort. In both cases the noun is essentially a location. With wablus^ka and waglu=la we are dealing with a PS situation, though a very complex one. There is a family of stems that refer to "vermin" or something of that ilk, and cover a range of arthropods, mollusks, annelids, reptiles, and amphibians. The general form is something like wa-CrV(S), often extended with -ka. In this range the CSD has: *waapuS 'vermin 1', cf. Cr baapuxta 'insect', Os (z^aN)puska 'ant' *wakruSka 'vermin 2', cf. Dhegiha forms like OP wagdhi's^ka 'insects, lizzards, worms' and Mandan waakiruxka 'snake, worm, snail' < *wa(a)kruxka. Dakotan forms suggesting *waprus^ka, cf. Te wablus^ka are considered blends of 'vermin 1' and 'vermin 2'. *wakreSka 'vermin 3', cf. Dakotan forms in gles^ka, like thathiN'gles^ka 'intestinal worms', IO thagre'ske 'flea', Biloxi kudeska' 'flea', and so on. *wakraNs^ka 'vermin 4', cf. Te gnas^ka' 'frog', Wi wakanaN's^ke 'frog', Biloxi kanac^ki' 'wood tick'. *wakri ~ *wakru 'vermin 5 (and 6?)', cf. Te waglu'la 'worms, maggots', Sa wamdu'la 'maggots', Wi wikiri 'insect, worm' This is plainly a somewhat arbitrary division into forms, amounting to one phonaestheme and somewhat specialized specializations of it ('frog', 'flea', etc.). What's relevant in the context is that one of the things Bob Rankin noticed about animal terms during the height of CSD work was that a good many animal names have an outright *wa or some etymological trace of *w- or *wa. In Crow and Winnebago it's often *wi instead. Even 'dog', once you get out of Mississippi Valley seems to have been *wis^uNk(e) or *was^uNke. He was able to argue from this and various Catawban and Yuchi parallels that PS probably (but rapidly lost) had a sort of noun-classifier prefix system, in which *wi, maybe alternating under some conditions with *wa, marked animals. Anyway, we have to wonder if some cases of *wa- on terms for animates, like wablus^ka or waglula, aren't relicts of this, especially when the terms are (more or less) reconstructable. This term is plainly "less" given the numerous irregularities in it and the doublets it leads to. This is maybe then yet-another-wa, the wa of animate terminology. Note that wablu's^ka, like wamakhas^kaN and ziNtka'=la, is probably one of the basic category terms for lifeforms in Dakotan, though I don't know if anyone has investigated this anthropological linguistics issue in Dakotan or any other Siouan language. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Fri Jan 9 05:24:35 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:24:35 -0600 Subject: More regarding "wa" Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: More regarding "wa" > Note that wablu's^ka, like wamakhas^kaN and ziNtka'=la, is probably one of > the basic category terms for lifeforms in Dakotan, though I don't know if > anyone has investigated this anthropological linguistics issue in Dakotan > or any other Siouan language. > I cannot speak to your thought above, but I know with certainty that the term "wamakhas^kaN oyate" occurrs regularly in sacred ceremonial songs. In general, it is my understanding in sacred context, that it referrs to all the "meat eating four leggeds", such as the wolf, coyote, fox, bear, etc., and is often allied to the South direction, from whence they (as spiritual guardian grandfathers) are beseeched to attend the prayers of the participants, and lend support and assistance to the supplication. Jimm From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 06:00:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:00:15 -0700 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: <3FFD4DD7.4264.EB8B8F@localhost> Message-ID: I'm embarassed to say that I had confused the wa-form for an indefintie form, though, of course, it's the first person! (In my defense, in Dhegiha, the first person is *a*, but I know it's wa in Dakota.) I realized the mistake later and hadn't gotten around to correcting it. On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > John > I believe this verb thikte can take an object like wichas^a wan thikte > 'he murdered a man (not as in warfare)' > Bruce > > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > > > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > > > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > > > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > > > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > > > in the spot, ... > > > > Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized > > for their "indefinite object" form or forms? > > > > JEK > > > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Fri Jan 9 11:53:36 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:53:36 CST Subject: web space for scanned images Message-ID: On 7 Jan 2004, are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > Pat, > Hi. I'm the SSILA (ssila.org) website manager. What exactly are the > requirements of the host site you need? (How big, software, hardware > etc.) What kind of interface would you expect and how often would > things change if ever? > I am not in a position to offer the room as I just manage the site > and the exec committee would have to discuss it, but I'm curious and > might be able to help somehow. > Regards, > Ardis Eschenberg Hi Ardis, short answer: If I could have all the public domain siouan materials in one place, I'd say clear me a space of 15GB and expect it to suffice for two years. After that time I hope to have a more formal site established. I don't need any special server-side software or hardware. It's just images and client-side processed web pages. I'd need to have access to update it quite often. long answer: At this point any level of web support for digitized public domain resources would be great. My ideal would be an ftp space I could access via a password, so I could update regularly (or irregularly for that matter). Size? Whatever can be spared. If someone only wanted to post Iapi Oaye I'd like at least 2.5GB for the web-navigable version, and possibly another 2.0GB for the archived tif files so anyone can play with those too. I also have just under another GB of dakota resources in the public domain that anyone could post, and it would take probably another 1.5GB for the archived tifs of those. I don't know if you'd be interested in hosting algonquian materials too, but I'd say another 5GB currently with another 10GB (both web-navigable and archived tifs) coming in the next two years (so an ideal total of 30GB (15 without the tifs) for both siouan and algonquian public domain materials). As far as the future, I expect the digital public domain resources to increase at about 2GB per year (4GB per year if you include archived tif files). But my main concern right now is to make the public domain stuff I do have available. Software/hardware isn't an issue. Everything is going to be just image files and web pages. The whole project is stand alone, so no server is required and it can be run off a cd or offline. Pat From warr0120 at umn.edu Fri Jan 9 14:19:43 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:19:43 CST Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: QUESTIONS: I'd like to guess at how long it would take to convert the film, and how large the output would be. Can anyone tell me roughly what dimensions the original slips of the Dorsey files are? Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there were actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary material, so I guess individually. Plus if anyone (Mark?) knows the magnification that would help. Even knowing whether you'd use a 1(9-16x), 2(13-27), or 3(23-50x) lens on a reader would help. It will also help to know how clear the images tend to be. Are they very dark? It doesn't matter whether they're positive or negative, 'cause they'd be converted to positive anyway. But tif files (the best archival format with the best compression) only stores data about black pixels, so the lighter an image generally is, and the less fuzz and scratches, the smaller the image file. For instance, one of the other reasons (other than large size of the physical source) the iapi oaye files are so big is because the filmed images are sometimes pretty dark and almost all have very dense text - lots of black pixels. Images or drawings will be generally very large files, but it sounds like most of the slips are text. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE: A few tentative guesses for the 20,000 Dorsey Dhegiha slip images: If more towards dark with dense text per slip: 3x5 - around 200kb ea., 20,000x..2= 4GB, 6 CDs 5x7 - around 325kb ea., 20,000x..325= 6.5GB, 10 CDs 8.5x11 - around 500kb ea., 20,000x.5= 10GB, 15 CDs If more towards light with sparse text per slip: 3x5 - around 30kb ea., 20,000x.03= 600MB, 1 CD 5x7 - around 50kb ea., 20,000x.05= 1GB, 2 CDs 8.5x11 - around 75kb ea., 20,000x.075= 1.5GB, 3 CDs For comparison, let's pretend that Iapi Oaye had been 20,000 pages instead of 3,100. At an average of about 540kb per image it would take up 11,000 GB, about the same as my worst case scenario for 8.5x11 above. Iapi Oaye is a good worst case standard (though the Dorsey slips surely will be nowehere near this size). Since the originals of Iapi Oaye were very large with dense text, when it's squeezed to fill the image capture area of the reader it has one of the highest ratios of text per inch you'll find. My guess is that the Dorsey slips are not very dense text, especially since they're handwritten, so I'd say that it's come in at under 5 CDs at the extreme, and quite possibly it would be much smaller. Give me some answers to the questions above and I'll let you know. Web pages to navigate the images would be almost negligible. As far as scanning time: A standard canadian fiche has 14 rows of 14 images, and I can usually sit still long enough at a time to scan about 7 rows of one of those. That's about 2 hours (though I'll go check again soon). So about 100 scans in two hours (that rate the limits of the equipment, the two hours is my equipment's limit - no ergonomics in that library). 20,000 / 70 = 200 hours / 2 hours per session = 100 sessions / 4 sessions a week = 25 weeks / 4 weeks a month = 6 months. I would process the images as I scanned them (though what a challenge for a descriptive bibliography!), so It could definitely be done in less than a year without even pushing very hard. Which I wouldn't want to do, 'cause there's lots of other work to do too. So, I'd say it's all doable. Plus I could post the output online as I go so people could watch the progress. In case you're interested, with print sources I can do about 70 scans an hour when I've got rhythym. If the source is small enough (trade paperback or smaller) that I can fit two books on a 12.2x17.2 scanner, that's 280 pages an hour! But then I have to crop(manual), straighten(manual), compress(macro) and convert(macro) everything to jpg. All told I can scan and process about 3-4,000 pages a month without feeling too busy. About readers, the Minolta MS6000, their cheaper microfilm scanner, has a list price of around $5500. Canon MS300 = $5,900. Some other innovative but iffy systems come down as far as around $3,000. With those prices, plus the inevitable service plan and software, I really prefer the public access systems at the U's library here. I think there's 6 or 7 scanning stations at Wilson library. If we really want to get it done fast, the Donnegan Systems: M525 Microfilm Scanner, 100 images per minute (I'm only slightly slower, though check the math above), is listed at only $53,000. But it can't do fiche! (The system for fiche is only $59,900!) So, whoever wants to send me a check for an even $60,000, we can get to work. Or we can do it for free (well, the cost of postage to mail the film here). Anyone interested? Pat From jfu at centrum.cz Fri Jan 9 09:34:08 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:34:08 +0100 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > Anyway, we have to wonder if some cases of *wa- on terms for animates, > like wablus^ka or waglula, aren't relicts of this, especially when the > terms are (more or less) reconstructable. Just adding some more wa- animates that occur among the bird names: wa?phagica = yellow-headed blackbird wa- pha (head) gi (yellow/brown) ka (such) wa?blosha = red-winged blackbird wa- ablo? (shoulder) sha (red) wa?bloska = white-winged blackbird wa- ablo? (shoulder) ska (white) wagle?kshuN = wild turkey wa- glega (stripped) shuN (tail feathers) wakiN?yela = pigeon wa- kiNyaN (to fly) la (dim) wasna?snaheca = kingbird ?? Jan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 9 16:59:27 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:59:27 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Hi Pat, > Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there were > actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary > material, so I guess individually. I can answer this one, as I recently spent several months plowing through them for acculturation terms. No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, and it's probably high. For the OP dictionary part, we have 3 reels. Each reel is divided into segments of 10 frames. Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. Reel 1 has at least 148 segments; reel 2 has at least 175 segments; and reel 3 has at least 222 segments. So the 20,000 word estimate is built on a calculation like (148 + 175 + 222) * 10 * 4 = 21,800 words, minus some for frames with only 2 or 3 cards = 20,000 words. (There is usually one word per card, but sometimes more. Also, the cards are generally type-written, though there are many hand-written ones as well, which are not extremely legible. I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted alphabetically in the same deck. So although the handwritten cards are hard to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as they are only duplicates of words on the type-written cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, we should estimate about 10,000 words in the collection. Considering that many of these are just variously inflected forms of the same verb, a modern dictionary based on the collection would have much fewer basic words, possibly on the order of 5,000.) For total frames, I think we can figure about 5,500. Rory From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Fri Jan 9 17:40:45 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:40:45 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Aloha All, Additional comments about the JOD 8 reels. The images are black with white lettering (t.s. and m.s.) I used a Canon Canonfilmer 100 desktop planetary microfilmer with interchangeable recorder unit. I used 16mm-100ft. AGFA COPEX PAN A.H.U. PET 13 film. The reduction ratio was: 24x for up to 9x12-5/8" 32x for up to 11-1/2x16" 34x for up to 12-3/4x17-1/2" (if any of that makes sense) Rolls 1-3 (lexicon) are in cinema format. Rolls 4-8 are in comic strip format. The lens on my recycled microfilm reader is not marked for magnification. 1-1/2 frames appears on each screen. However, I move the carriage from side to side to focus directly on one card within a four card frame for best clarity. mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Bessey Hall 132 Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 402-472-3455 FAX 402-472-9642 mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > > > > > Hi Pat, > > > Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there > were > > actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary > > material, so I guess individually. > > I can answer this one, as I recently spent several months > plowing through them for acculturation terms. > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total > number of words, and it's probably high. For the OP > dictionary part, we have 3 reels. Each reel is > divided into segments of 10 frames. Each frame > includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card > images. Reel 1 has at least 148 segments; reel 2 > has at least 175 segments; and reel 3 has at least > 222 segments. So the 20,000 word estimate is built > on a calculation like > > (148 + 175 + 222) * 10 * 4 = 21,800 words, > > minus some for frames with only 2 or 3 cards > > = 20,000 words. > > (There is usually one word per card, but sometimes > more. Also, the cards are generally type-written, > though there are many hand-written ones as well, > which are not extremely legible. I suspect Dorsey > originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then > typed them on another card, but all these cards > were kept and sorted alphabetically in the same > deck. So although the handwritten cards are hard > to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as > they are only duplicates of words on the type-written > cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented > by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, > we should estimate about 10,000 words in the > collection. Considering that many of these are > just variously inflected forms of the same verb, > a modern dictionary based on the collection would > have much fewer basic words, possibly on the order > of 5,000.) > > For total frames, I think we can figure about > 5,500. > > Rory From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Fri Jan 9 19:20:36 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:20:36 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists Message-ID: Hi gang: I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. How many have made word lists for a particular area? What I mean is to take a subject area and list all the terms associated. Examples: Various trades like carpentry (tools, woods used, hardware, commands [cut it, hit it, drive it in, cut it, lift, shove, plumb, level, square it etc). I have collected terms for hide work (tanning). Later, Louie From tleonard at prodigy.net Fri Jan 9 19:40:19 2004 From: tleonard at prodigy.net (Tom Leonard) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:40:19 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: If it's of any help, I ordered my 8 Dorsey reels with "reverse imaging", that is black letters on a white background. They were, in my opinion, far easier to read that way. Perhaps the reverse imaging would enhance the scanning process? Don't know. If so, I have them available. Last and lowest estimate I received from a document imaging company was $0.05 per image. Estimating about 25 images per foot x 100 ft x $0.05 x 8 rolls, that comes to about $125 per roll or $1000 total. From earlier e-mail on this subject, this might be on the high side.......it may be more like $75 - $100 per roll. Can we get 10 or 15 of us to spring for $100 each, or so, for CD's of all 8 rolls? The more of us that chip in ...the lower the price. Anyone interested? TML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark-Awakuni Swetland" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > Aloha All, > Additional comments about the JOD 8 reels. > > The images are black with white lettering (t.s. and m.s.) > > I used a Canon Canonfilmer 100 desktop planetary microfilmer with > interchangeable recorder unit. > > I used 16mm-100ft. AGFA COPEX PAN A.H.U. PET 13 film. > > The reduction ratio was: > 24x for up to 9x12-5/8" > 32x for up to 11-1/2x16" > 34x for up to 12-3/4x17-1/2" > (if any of that makes sense) > > Rolls 1-3 (lexicon) are in cinema format. Rolls 4-8 are in comic strip > format. > > The lens on my recycled microfilm reader is not marked for magnification. > 1-1/2 frames appears on each screen. However, I move the carriage from side > to side to focus directly on one card within a four card frame for best > clarity. > > mark > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > University of Nebraska > Anthropology/Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies > Bessey Hall 132 > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > 402-472-3455 > FAX 402-472-9642 > mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rory M Larson" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:59 AM > Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Pat, > > > > > Are the slips individually filmed or several at once? John said there > > were > > > actually 20,000 shots on the film for the larger Dhegiha dictionary > > > material, so I guess individually. > > > > I can answer this one, as I recently spent several months > > plowing through them for acculturation terms. > > > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total > > number of words, and it's probably high. For the OP > > dictionary part, we have 3 reels. Each reel is > > divided into segments of 10 frames. Each frame > > includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card > > images. Reel 1 has at least 148 segments; reel 2 > > has at least 175 segments; and reel 3 has at least > > 222 segments. So the 20,000 word estimate is built > > on a calculation like > > > > (148 + 175 + 222) * 10 * 4 = 21,800 words, > > > > minus some for frames with only 2 or 3 cards > > > > = 20,000 words. > > > > (There is usually one word per card, but sometimes > > more. Also, the cards are generally type-written, > > though there are many hand-written ones as well, > > which are not extremely legible. I suspect Dorsey > > originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then > > typed them on another card, but all these cards > > were kept and sorted alphabetically in the same > > deck. So although the handwritten cards are hard > > to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as > > they are only duplicates of words on the type-written > > cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented > > by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, > > we should estimate about 10,000 words in the > > collection. Considering that many of these are > > just variously inflected forms of the same verb, > > a modern dictionary based on the collection would > > have much fewer basic words, possibly on the order > > of 5,000.) > > > > For total frames, I think we can figure about > > 5,500. > > > > Rory > From warr0120 at umn.edu Fri Jan 9 19:47:55 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:47:55 CST Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Thanks Rory, Mark, and Tom That gives a real good idea of what we've got. If I were to do the digital work, I'd think I'll go with this ballpark guess: 5x7 - around 50kb ea., 20,000x.05= 1GB, 2 CDs > So although the handwritten cards are hard > to read, it probably doesn't matter too much as > they are only duplicates of words on the type-written > cards anyway. If we suppose each word is represented > by both a handwritten card and a type-written card, > we should estimate about 10,000 words in the > collection. (Rory) Well, I'd be scanning everything in there. You don't want to redo work like this, so I prefer to get it all in one go and preserve as much integrity of the collection as possible. So the number of cards is what I'm looking at now, redundant or not. But once it's digitized, then it's all about the content and making it useful, while still having the reproduction (of the reproduction) of the collection to refer to, as it is physically structured. > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. (Rory) > The lens on my recycled microfilm reader is not marked for magnification. > 1-1/2 frames appears on each screen. However, I move the carriage from side > to side to focus directly on one card within a four card frame for best > clarity. (Mark) Well, if there are generally multiple cards per frame, then this will go way faster. Microfilm resolution gives about 200dpi output at max. When digitizing you don't zoom in on each card on the microfilm reader, you just take the whole frame as it fills the image capture area. Zooming in doesn't actually give you better quality, it just gives the same effect as scanning the whole frame at once and zooming in on the digitized images on the computer. > The images are black with white lettering (t.s. and m.s.) (Mark) > If it's of any help, I ordered my 8 Dorsey reels with "reverse imaging", that is black letters on a white background. They were, in my opinion, far easier to read that > way. Perhaps the reverse imaging would enhance the scanning process? Don't know. If so, I have them available. (Tom) Well, the images would be archived as positive to have the smallest file size, but if it's easier to read it as negative it could be converted to negative jpg's for display. It doesn't make any difference whether the film is positive or negative for scanning quality or image size. > For total frames, I think we can figure about > 5,500. I have now learned that my math skills when sleep deprived are rather fanciful. At least I used a calcumalator in figuring out the MB. Should have been 20000 images / 100 images per session = 200 sessions / 4 sessions per week = 50 weeks. Though now I'm more sleep deprived than earlier, so maybe I should redo this later. It's a good thing the slips weren't filmed individually! Well, I'll try again with the 5500 number: 5500 images / 100 images per session = 55 sessions / 4 session per week = 14 weeks / 4 weeks per month = under 4 mo. So I'd say for the Dhegiha film with around 20,000 images in 5,500 frames it would take four months to scan and process and we'd have the whole thing on 2 CDs. Pat From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 9 20:22:41 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:22:41 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists Message-ID: Hi Louie, I've been collecting acculturation terms for Euro-American technology in OP, mostly from the Dorsey dictionary and Fletcher and La Flesche. A restriction is that they must be a noun, so I don't have verb phrases to go with these. Of course, some of these can be deduced because the nouns themselves are built out of the verb phrases. I wouldn't have anything on hide-tanning, because I assume that technology is basically native. But I do have a few carpentry terms if you're interested. And yes, I have been segregating these terms into techno-categories in the way you describe. I'd like to expand on this in the future, and would be particularly interested in comparing between MVS languages. So I'm very interested in hearing about what you are doing! Rory "Louis Garcia" hoop.cc> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: Siouan word lists owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/09/2004 01:20 PM Please respond to siouan Hi gang: I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. How many have made word lists for a particular area? What I mean is to take a subject area and list all the terms associated. Examples: Various trades like carpentry (tools, woods used, hardware, commands [cut it, hit it, drive it in, cut it, lift, shove, plumb, level, square it etc). I have collected terms for hide work (tanning). Later, Louie From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 20:27:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:27:16 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > wa?phagica = yellow-headed blackbird > wa- pha (head) gi (yellow/brown) ka (such) Assuming that what I see as ? is an accent mark, then I suspect this is wa-a-pha-gi-ka, with a 'on'. > wagle?kshuN = wild turkey > wa- glega (stripped) shuN (tail feathers) Not glex? > wasna?snaheca = kingbird > ?? Perhaps onomatopoeic? Especially given =hec^a 'be such a one'. I'll see if I can locate the call. From vstabler at esu1.org Fri Jan 9 22:36:30 2004 From: vstabler at esu1.org (Vida Stabler) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:36:30 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists Message-ID: UmoNhoN Nation Public Schools, UmoNhoN Language Center, has some categorized word lists. We document daily so when a new word arrises (not in Stabler/Swetland Dictionary) we have a folders to document. Household objects would be an example. Also, our Elders create new words which get added into the appropriate folder. I too would be interested in knowing what other categories exist. V.Stabler ULC Louis Garcia wrote: > Hi gang: > I have been wanting to ask this for a long time. > How many have made word lists for a particular area? > What I mean is to take a subject area and list all the terms associated. > Examples: Various trades like carpentry (tools, woods used, hardware, > commands [cut it, hit it, drive it in, cut it, lift, shove, plumb, level, > square it etc). > I have collected terms for hide work (tanning). > Later, > Louie From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 23:53:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:53:13 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > and it's probably high. The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction. It's been a while since I've been able to consult the microfilm. The CU Library microfilm facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in Minnesota. > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > alphabetically in the same deck. Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of notes and slips as needing to be typed. What I do remember is that somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax. It looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form" cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form actually existed and, if so, what it might mean. This was only one of his discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number. I couldn't say what percentage they might have been. I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that and I don't have the file handy. I remember immediately concluding that the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem. The slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the same slip. Different slips may be different derivations from the same underlying stem. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 9 23:59:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:59:25 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <007301c3d6e8$6c061300$efa83841@tleonard> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Tom Leonard wrote: > Can we get 10 or 15 of us to spring for $100 each, or so, for CD's of all 8 > rolls? The more of us that chip in ...the lower the price. Anyone > interested? I'd be willing to chip in, though I'd like to investigate doing it through Pat first. I admit to having some qualms about asking him to donate several working months of his time to the project unremunerated. I also have a copy of the reels, not currently being used much, as I've indicated, and I would be willing to lend them out for the project. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 10 00:04:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:04:08 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <200401091947.i09JltkE025493@trojan.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > Well, I'd be scanning everything in there. You don't want to redo work like > this, so I prefer to get it all in one go and preserve as much integrity of > the collection as possible. I agree with this. The 20K estimates deal with the largest component of the collection, the C/egiha slip file. A considerable number of other things, including some other smaller slip files, are included in the full set of reels. And, for what it's worth, Mark didn't exhaust the NAA Dorsey materials, though he did copy a substantial portion of them. Incidentally, I suppose it would be tactful of us to let the NAA in on what we're thinking of doing. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 10 00:27:32 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:32 -0700 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <00c801c3d592$de31c110$68430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > Is it still available, perhaps as a reprint somewhere? Is this the best and > most recent Winn/ Hochank grammar? This is probably the most complete and readable and the only one in print. I don't know of any reprint copy, but some libraries have copies, and xeroxes are available. I've never checked to see if it is also available from UMI. That might be interesting to do. Marten's dissertation is available, but it in a sort of morphological generative format, and a bit hard to read. It's worth looking at, though, because it is very explicit about morpheme order and so has information on details Lipkind didn't even think about. Sussman's dissertation is also around, though *not* available from UMI. It is supposed to be good, but I haven't worked with it much and don't have a copy. Lipkind's orthography is complex and awkward as far as marking length. He discusses only phonology and morphology, including enclitic complexes under the latter category. His terminology is occasionally somewhat odd and old-fashioned. He doesn't discuss the reflexives of second conjugation (syncopating) verbs, and a glance through Miner's Field Lexicon suggests that in so doing he missed a rather complex corner of the morphology. He has nothing much to say about the syntax or anything above the word level. I think some of his morpheme identifications fail because of this. JE From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Jan 10 05:02:09 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:02:09 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: John wrote: >> I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed >> them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted >> alphabetically in the same deck. > > Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of Well, I haven't looked at them for about a year myself, but I seem to recall quite a lot of handwritten notes that matched type-written ones elsewhere. At any rate, I'm sure I didn't have to puzzle out handwritten words that were unique, except for a few miscellaneous ones at the very beginning. Mark is planning to look up some things on the reels Sunday afternoon. Perhaps he can set us straight here. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/09/2004 05:53 PM Please respond to siouan On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > and it's probably high. The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction. It's been a while since I've been able to consult the microfilm. The CU Library microfilm facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in Minnesota. > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > alphabetically in the same deck. Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of notes and slips as needing to be typed. What I do remember is that somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax. It looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form" cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form actually existed and, if so, what it might mean. This was only one of his discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number. I couldn't say what percentage they might have been. I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that and I don't have the file handy. I remember immediately concluding that the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem. The slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the same slip. Different slips may be different derivations from the same underlying stem. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 10 07:09:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:09:20 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > > wasna?snaheca = kingbird > > ?? > > Perhaps onomatopoeic? Especially given =hec^a 'be such a one'. I'll see > if I can locate the call. Stokes, Donald W. 1979. A Guide to the Behavior of Common Birds. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown, and Co. p. 122, "Auditory Displays, Kitter-call, kitterkitterkitter A rapidly repeated two-part phrase, much like the written description. ..." Note that Buechel lists sna' 'to ring, sound', snasna' 'to ring, to rattle'. I'd deduce *wasna'sna 'rattle' > wasna'sna=hec^a 'the one that's like a rattle'. JEK From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sun Jan 11 03:17:25 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:25 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: [Gentium] Update #2 Message-ID: Many of you may be on the SIL and/or Gentium mailing-lists, but for those who aren't, the links below, though not referring directly to Siouan, are very interesting. Alan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Gentium] Update #2 - Linux version available, updated FAQ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:03:04 +0000 From: Gentium-Announce List To: Gentium-Announce Gentium-Announce List Update #2 - Linux version available, updated FAQ - - - - - - - - Dear friends of Gentium, Three pieces of good news: - A release of Gentium for Linux is now available thanks to the excellent work of Nicolas Spalinger. - The Gentium FAQ has been expanded to include almost all types of questions we usually get. Check there before writing us, as you will likely get an answer much sooner! - The LISA newsletter recently published an interview with me about Gentium and other multilingual topics. It can be found at LISA's web site: http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/4.3/gaultney.html - The Gentium site now has a simpler URL All of this can be found at http://scripts.sil.org/gentium Victor Gaultney Gentium /at/ sil.org From mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu Sun Jan 11 17:25:24 2004 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu (Mark-Awakuni Swetland) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:25:24 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: Aloha all, 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. e.g. JOD3:198 ms card wedajiaditaN (Wdj) ts card wedajiatataN (Wdj) WHERE THE PREVIOUS D HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A T MARKED WITH AN UNDER-X Perhaps there is a formula that John or others have noticed that JOD used when going from ms to ts that includes that d=>t(x) shift. Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication". While my particular reader screen shows 1-1/2 frames that may not be the case universally. I have to center the upper and lower frames for best focus (with tri-focals and a kinked neck) Ideally, a single card per image would allow for maximum flexibility in sorting, deleting, etc. However, I would not impose that obsessive compulsive approach on someone other than myself. So the efficient comporomise that I would recommend is that we adopt a single frame per image approach. uthixide Mark Awakuni-Swetland University of Nebraska mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > > > > > John wrote: > >> I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > >> them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > >> alphabetically in the same deck. > > > > Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him > > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of > > Well, I haven't looked at them for about a year myself, > but I seem to recall quite a lot of handwritten notes > that matched type-written ones elsewhere. At any rate, > I'm sure I didn't have to puzzle out handwritten words > that were unique, except for a few miscellaneous ones > at the very beginning. > > Mark is planning to look up some things on the reels > Sunday afternoon. Perhaps he can set us straight here. > > Rory > > > > > Koontz John E > o.edu> cc: > Sent by: Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate > owner-siouan at lists.c > olorado.edu > > > 01/09/2004 05:53 PM > Please respond to > siouan > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > > and it's probably high. > > The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch > of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches > in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they > counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. > > > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images. > > I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction. It's been a while since > I've been able to consult the microfilm. The CU Library microfilm > facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in > Minnesota. > > > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed > > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted > > alphabetically in the same deck. > > Is there substantial duplication? I don't remember that. I'd expect him > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed. Elsewhere he speaks of > notes and slips as needing to be typed. What I do remember is that > somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set > of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on > knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax. It > looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a > potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form" > cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form > actually existed and, if so, what it might mean. This was only one of his > discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such > cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number. I > couldn't say what percentage they might have been. > > I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came > up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that > and I don't have the file handy. I remember immediately concluding that > the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that > count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem. The > slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the > same slip. Different slips may be different derivations from the same > underlying stem. > > > > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 12 00:16:51 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:16:51 CST Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: On 11 Jan 2004, Mark-Awakuni Swetland wrote: > Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody > might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication". There's a very important thing to notice when dealing with unpaginated or multple-original-page-per-frame microform. I consider in this case, and really with any microform manuscript sources, that in digitization, you're actually working with two different sources. An original source and a reproduction of it. First, you want the content of the original (the writing) with its physical structure (the separation of writing by layout and paging). So you want here to have each card as 1 image. Along with this you need to write a good description of the structure of the original with what information you have via the film. If you have access to the original documents you can do an even more thorough description of the collection. Second, you have the film itself which may serve as the only (reasonably) available identifier of the overall organization of the pages (or cards), so in this case you want 1 image per frame of film. You here need to do a good description of the film itself: sequence of frames, contents of multiple reels, info about the filming, etc. I wasn't convinced of this until AFTER scanning Iapi Oaye, so soon I'll have to get both the film and fiche versions again and do a real good description of them. But learning by trying's the only way to make it sink in. For me anyway. So from now on... > While my particular reader screen shows 1-1/2 frames that may not be the > case universally. I have to center the upper and lower frames for best focus > (with tri-focals and a kinked neck) The readers here at the U of MN have handled every fiche and film I've tried. The Minolta readers have the three different lenses and can display the full frame of any film from 9x-50x. I don't know of any film that's outside this range in common use. Yet. > Ideally, a single card per image would allow for maximum flexibility in > sorting, deleting, etc. However, I would not impose that obsessive > compulsive approach on someone other than myself. So the efficient > comporomise that I would recommend is that we adopt a single frame per image > approach. I don't mind sharing work, so I wouldn't mind just doing the scanning, cropping, and straightening of the 1 frame per scan images. Then I can send along the images to anyone else to separate, crop, and straighten as 1 card per image. But I'll send along software to try too. The stuff I use is much better for these functions than any imaging program I've tried, Adobe or otherwise. My whole project is focused on compartmentalized processing steps so each little step you take on the digital path produces something useful, and each step could be done by a different person. The cooperative approach is the way it should be. In response to John K. mentioning concern about asking me to dedicate months to this project... I'm offering. This kind of work IS my work now. Not my paid work, but MY work, what I like spending my time doing and feel very morally motivated to do. In addition, I think that making the conversion to a digital research environment should become normal for people in their own fields, not for specialized industries. Academia got hooked on commerical publishing too much, rather than including the cost of publishing in the budget of DOING academic work, it became something external to academia and made it dependent on a commericalized industry for a voice. That problem is reaching an extreme with the international publishing giants and the academic journal racket. To spend $1,000 or more now on digitization of one source probably to the exlusion of others, and getting comfortable with always hiring out would be a sad direction to go, I think. For now there's not enough people capable of doing the full digitization themselves, but this is how you can set precedents. One main goal in doing this work for the last two years is to set up a replicable process that anyone anywhere studying anything can be trained on: standards, processing steps, equipment, data encoding, interface design...at the lowest cost possible in time and money. But beyond that there's also the great american fear and suspicion of anyone who offers to help and doesn't want anything material or monetary in exchange. I've already had many people tell me that nobody will want the results of my work if I'm not charging anything for it. There's some truth to it, but people seem very capable of converting it into productive guilt. I'm not saying these are your thoughts, John, but it's an important issue to bring up. As far as an obsessive compulsive behaviors in linguistics, I think that might be par for the course. And for squirrels. Pat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 12 14:52:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:52:02 -0700 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate In-Reply-To: <005b01c3d867$e609f830$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Mark-Awakuni Swetland wrote: > e.g. JOD3:198 > ms card > wedajiaditaN (Wdj) > > ts card > wedajiatataN (Wdj) > WHERE THE PREVIOUS D HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A T MARKED WITH AN UNDER-X > > Perhaps there is a formula that John or others have noticed that JOD used > when going from ms to ts that includes that d=>t(x) shift. I think these may be two forms wedaz^ia=di=thaN and wedaz^ia=tta=thaN, both 'from elsewhere'. Both =di=thaN and =tta=thaN mean 'from' and occur in the texts. These are apparently derived from =di 'at' and =tta 'to'. (Though with verbs of motion better glosses are '(up) to' and 'toward'.) I assume there is some sort of hard to gloss difference in the two 'froms', like, maybe 'from right at' vs. 'from near' or 'from there to here' vs. 'from there toward here', but this fine distinction is not preserved in the English. > Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody > might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication". I agree with that. From vstabler at esu1.org Mon Jan 12 17:53:00 2004 From: vstabler at esu1.org (Vida Stabler) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:53:00 -0600 Subject: Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: The UmoNhoN Language Center will be able to contribute something. Who is taking the lead on keeping track of the money contributed and money needed??? I like where this is going. V. Stabler Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob wrote: > > If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, > > converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would > contribute his > > financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw > dictionaries > > and wouldn't need those reels.) > > Ditto here, and also for the Kansa, Quapaw and Osage > material, which I don't have. > > Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 12 18:24:34 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:24:34 -0600 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. In-Reply-To: <4002DEFC.481D9A4D@esu1.org> Message-ID: I think I have a hard copy of all the Osage from this collection. But the advantages of having the material on CD seem to be important. I have two (perhaps naive) questions: 1. Since the materials will be just scanned and probably no OCR will work, would we somehow be able to search the materials more easily than paper copies of same? (At the very least perhaps via cataloguing tracks laid in the CDs?) 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper copies? (Many of the typed Osage slips from this collection, for example, are too blurry to read in my paper copy.) If the answer to either of these question is positive, then it would be worth it to contribute funds to have the material on CDs and acquire a set of CDs, even if we already have a paper version of the material, it seems to me. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Vida Stabler Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:53 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Microfilm to CD conversion. The UmoNhoN Language Center will be able to contribute something. Who is taking the lead on keeping track of the money contributed and money needed??? I like where this is going. V. Stabler Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob wrote: > > If there is a movement toward getting the Omaha lexicon, all 20+K of it, > > converted to CD format, please count me in as someone who would > contribute his > > financial share. (I already have hard copy of the Kansa and Quapaw > dictionaries > > and wouldn't need those reels.) > > Ditto here, and also for the Kansa, Quapaw and Osage > material, which I don't have. > > Rory From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Jan 12 18:40:28 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:40:28 -0000 Subject: mircofilm digitization In-Reply-To: <200401052120.i05LKYJ5001885@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Pat Interesting to see that you are working on the Iapi Oaye. It is an interesting collection of things. There are a few pages of it here at the British Museum Library. Also in our library somewhere, but lost, there is said to be a translation of the Pilgrim's Progress into Dakota. Yours Bruce Date sent: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:20:34 CST Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Pat Warren To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: mircofilm digitization > Yes, it's all possible. I've spent the last two years working on digitizing > dakota and ojibwe texts from both print and microfilm. I just completed > converting Iapi Oaye from microfilm to a web-navigable format. The images > are archived as 500 dpi (actually better resolution than necessary for > microfilm, but necessary for ocr of printed materials) tiff but converted > to jpg for web page display. If anyone wants to see the Iapi Oaye cds let > me know. Out of the 70 years it was published I'm missing less than ten > pages (about 3100 images total. I'm hoping to distribute them more openly > this spring when I get better at working with xslt processeors and can make > the web pages work in more browser versions. As of right now, all the data > and web pages are in xml so at this point it only works in internet > explorer 6.0 on a pc. It might work on IE for mac too but I haven't > checked. > > The University of Minnesota Wilson Library has all their microfilm print > stations hooked up to computers now with capturing software that can send > what you see on the reader to a printer or to a file. The 35mm film > scanners and slide scanners don't work with microfilm. You have to have a > reader with a paralell port output and software for requesting the image. > The equipment to do all this is still too pricy for personal purchase in my > opinion, so I'm happy to use the public equipment. My focus has been > setting up standards and methods that anyone can replicate if they have the > equipment. I work with great, trainable OCR software (Abbyy Finereader > 7.0). I did lots of testing to find out what resolution you need to get the > best results (500dpi), the best archiving format (tiff for black and white > documents, 300 dpi jpg for greyscale or color). > > If you're interested in jumping into a digitizing project, let me know. > This is what I'm committing much of my time to now. Don't waste time with > grants and don't spend money on overpriced digitizing services. The quality > of most of the digitized material I've seen so far, like those from the LOC > and National Library of Canada, are actually really poor quality and > consistency and their interfaces are pretty unimpressive and confusing. I'm > interested in making all these materials available to anyone as low cost as > possible. > > I posted a few of the images from Iapi Oaye so you can see the output. > Here's the URIs: > > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_01.jpg > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_02.jpg > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_03.jpg > www.tc.umn.edu/~warr0120/images/1871_05_04.jpg > > They're very large images so it may be a slow download at home. > > Let me know if you want the current (IE 6.0 for Windows only) version of > the iapi oaye cds (only images, it'll probably be a few years before I've > got it converted to text, or maybe someone else will do it). It took 4 cds > to fit it all, but keep in mind that the images are very very large. I > chose to make them huge since the originals were newspaper sized, and I > want it to be easily readable. With normal 8.5 by 11 or smaller you'd be > able to fit a lot more onto a cd. I have lots of other samples to of > digitized print sources, and a few dissertations I got from fiche. In the > next few months I'll be posting a list of what I've got. I hope to find > some nice person at a university who can offer server space to distrbute > the files so people can burn their own cds. I've got a lot of public domain > sources digitized (though only a couple converted to full text and it'll be > a while before I get the programming done to make those useful), though > full text versions are my main goal. Here's some of what I've got: > > Dakotan: > -most of the BIA's indian reader series in lakota (Emil Afraid of Hawk and > Ann Nolan Clark) > -buechel's grammar, bible history > -deloria's dakota texts > -dorsey's omaha ponca letters > -hunflavy's dakota nyelv (hungarian) > -hunt's bible history > -pilling's biblio > -rigg's grammar, dictionary, 1852 combo > > Ojibwe: > -both baraga grammars, both dictionaries > -belcourt's sauteux grammar > -cuoq's grammar, dictionary > -jones' ojibwe texts > -lemoine's dictionary > -pilling's biblio > -verwyst's exercises > -wilson's ojebway grammar > > I think now I have total around 25-30,000 pages of Dakota material and > 15-20,000 pages of Ojibwe material scanned and useable in my nice web-page > format. I'm focusing now on encoding full text versions so they're > integrable. Now I'm coding full text versions of the Pilling and Pentland > algonquian bibliographies and finding ways to combine them in a useful > format. Next will be practicing combining a couple of dictionaries. Then > there's the possibility of hooking it all together with texts linked to > dictionaries and vice versa, having citations and bibliographies linked to > digital versions of the original sources... endless possibility that should > save lots of research time. There's a lot to this work, and I could go on > for hours. > > I hope that sometime this year everything I've digitized (the public domain > stuff) will be freely available to all. I'm am very interested in working > with others on digitizing projects. I can give you a complete list of > equipment, software, standards, and methods I use if you like. But I'm also > open to the possibility of just having microfilm sent here for me to scan. > I'm fast, I do good work, and I'd hate to see people spend time and money > for low quality output. I enjoy the digitizing work, and from there I can > set people up to train and run the ocr software and proof full text > versions themselves. I know that in the near future this work will be an > essential part of research. The best part is, if you do a good job, once > you digitize something you can make it immediately available to everyone > for free, and then every time anyone wants to work with the material, there > it is! Some of the people here at the U of MN have loved having all the > Ojibwe grammars on one cd and all the Ojibwe dicitonaries on another. It > saves a lot of time, and makes things available that weren't really all > that available before. > > Pat Warren > > From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Mon Jan 12 21:34:48 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:34:48 -0600 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: Pat: It seems the Dhegihanist have the day. Nevertheless, the microfilm that I have for Dorsey are from his much smaller contribution on Jiwere/ Chiwere. I also have film from the Gordon Marsch collection. The original was one reel, I believe, but I have cut into sections for easier access to various section: stories, verbs, etc. I do not believe that the Siouan Archives in Boulder [CU] have a hard copy of Marsch MS. So like Carolyn, I am interested in having the material on CD. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. I have two > (perhaps naive) questions: > > 1. Since the materials will be just scanned and probably no OCR will work, > would we somehow be able to search the materials more easily than paper > copies of same? (At the very least perhaps via cataloguing tracks laid in > the CDs?) > > 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper copies? > (Many of the typed Osage slips from this collection, for example, are too > blurry to read in my paper copy.) > From are2 at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 13 05:13:40 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:13:40 -0500 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <001301c3d55d$f1dcf390$86335d81@unl.edu> Message-ID: Hey Mark! I got your useful finding aid! Thanks! I copied it for the ULC and also for NICC (which I'll keep til we get into a new building). I'm sorry to have missed you Friday. Hope you had a great trip. Thanks for the aid! -Ardis From warr0120 at umn.edu Tue Jan 13 05:50:11 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:50:11 CST Subject: mircofilm digitization Message-ID: Bruce, > Also in our library somewhere, but lost, there > is said to be a translation of the Pilgrim's Progress into Dakota. > Yours > Bruce The MN HIstorical Society has a copy of that. It's titled "Cante teca." Stephen Riggs is listed as translator. 277p. Pat From warr0120 at umn.edu Tue Jan 13 07:07:16 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:07:16 CST Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: Carolyn and Jimm, Short: 1. Even 25-50% ocr accuracy saves time. 2. By doing a good bibliographic description and generating web pages, contents pages, and indexes from it, even just scanned images are more accessible than a printed source. 3. Scans from microfilm are better (higher resolution) than copies from microfilm. Copies from paper might be better than scans from film. Scans from film allow image manipulation with imaging software that can make them more legible. Digitalization preserves content that can be lost as original sources decay, so sometimes the film is better than the original. 4. Dorsey's Dhegiha slips are only one source. Invest energy in the process, not money in the service. Long: > 1. Since the materials will be just scanned and probably no OCR will work, (Carolyn) Having not yet seen the film, I can't say how well ocr would work. I always hold out hope and prefer to try it, and with ocr, even 25% or 50% accuracy saves a lot of time, I've found. > would we somehow be able to search the materials more easily than paper > copies of same? (At the very least perhaps via cataloguing tracks laid in > the CDs?) (Carolyn) The way I do my work is to write a very detailed descriptive bibliography of the source I'm digitizing. In going from microform to digital I write two: one describing the structure (as much as possible) of the original document(s), and another describing the structure of the microform itself. I then create web pages for the images from the source, one page per image with navigation buttons so you can flip through the images in order, one page forward or backward, or ten pages forward or backward (but the buttons only appear if the bibliography says there IS a +10 page, etc.). There's also a table of contents web page (accessible from any individual page) and the contents are generated automatically from the bibliographies, written in xml. For microform I can also set up two versions of web pages. For a film like the Dorsey Dhegiha slips, I'd create one web version to represent the original source, with one slip per page. Then I'd create another web version to represent the film itself, with one frame of microfilm per page. So in a way I'd consider myself to be creating a reproduction of two different sources at the same time, though one is noted as a itself derived from a reproduction. I didn't do this with iapi oaye because there was always only one original page per microfilm frame, but I would still want the two different bibliographies available. Even when you're dealing with large, unstructured documents you can easily create many ways to organize the contents page to make it more accessible. As long as you do a real good bibliographical description and have solid naming conventions for files. As an example, when I did a bibliographical description of Pentland and Wolfart's Bibliography of algonquian linguistics (1982), my xml file lists where logical sections as well as physical sections begin and end. So the order of pages is there, the order of general sections like front matter, introductory matter, the bibliography itself, and index matter. But I also record where the letters of the alphabet start and end in the bibliography, as though they were chapters. Even though they're not explicity marked, the bibliography is organized alphabetically by author. In making explicit in the bibliography this type of latent data content you automatically make the images, even without conversion (yet) to text, way more accessible (though without a laptop not as all-terrain) than the book. > 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper copies? (Carolyn) Probably, because most people's copies probably come from the film, and the scans from the film would come at a higher resolution than copies from the film. Though microfilming introduces lots of noise, and is pretty low resolution (200dpi versus the 500dpi that I use), so copies from the original might (depending on the copier used) end up better quality than scanning from the microfilm reproduction. And if you make copies from the paper after the micrfilm was produced, you may miss out if the paper has decayed in some way. But one option that digitizing offers that's good for mandwritten materials is the endless array of modifications you can do in imaging programs that can help you see better what's there. As one example, In scanning the new edition of Buechel's dictionary the back of the pages were often showing through because of the paper quality. So I scanned it all in grayscale. Since the back of the page showed through lighter than the printing on the page being scanned, it was recorded as grey while the text on the scanned back was scanned as black. When I then saved the image as black and white, it just left out the grey and the "bleed-through" disappeared. This has now worked well with older books that the same problem in scanning, and even for some actual ink bleed-through. So the scan of the page does sometimes turn out more legible than the page itself. This doesn't work with microform though (not yet anyway), because the hardware itself only sees in monochrome (black only). But other imaging software modifications might make some images easier to read (but these modifications wouldn't be done to the archived images, you'd have to do it yourself). > If the answer to either of these question is positive, then it would be > worth it to contribute funds to have the material on CDs and acquire a set > of CDs, even if we already have a paper version of the material, it seems to > me. (Carolyn) > It seems the Dhegihanist have the day. Nevertheless, the microfilm that I > have for Dorsey are from his much smaller contribution on Jiwere/ Chiwere. (Jimm) Don't get too excited about the Dorsey Dhegiha slips. It's only one source. Whether or not other people realize it, full digitization is going to happen. Once you actually see the whole process, from scanning to full hyperlinked, combined, searchable texts, it's very clear. Spend money on it if you want. But if you feel compelled to spend money, why not invest in the process rather than just paying for a service? Don't be too shortsighted on this and waste time, money, and excitement. There's a lot of stuff that should be done. My idea of complete digitization: bibliography, images, plain text, coded text, various display options, and derivative works. If people invest in the process of how to go about this, and how to do this INSIDE the field, with very little money involved, this can make cooperation much easier. Let people with different interests, skills, time, and degrees of compulsion do what they want, but combine the work together in a well designed, public process. But you have to start investing in that internal process sometime, even if it means just investing your interest and curiosity there, instead of investing money outside the field. Pat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 13 07:32:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:32:16 -0700 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. In-Reply-To: <200401130707.i0D77GpG007213@challenge.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > 2. Would we be able to distinguish characters better than on paper > copies? (Carolyn) > > Probably, because most people's copies probably come from the film, and the > scans from the film would come at a higher resolution than copies from the > film. I don't know about Carolyn's copies, but I know Bob's were made by hand by the NAA staff. They actually overlaid the blank areas at the bottom of slips with the next slip wherever feasible, to reduce the copying charge. (I'm not quite sure of the logic of this, as the it seems like more work, and fees are usually dominated by labor costs.) The NAA is not especially invested in microfilming (unlike the APS) and I believe Mark's activities represented at the time the major instance of microfilming of the NAA holdings. I believe they can still make no use of the microfilm themselves and even go so far as to lend it out for the making of copies, a matter of potential concern. I may have misunderstood some of my sources on this, and my information may be out of date. The folks at the NAA seem, however, to be sadly underfunded. JEK From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jan 13 12:33:22 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:33:22 -0000 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes the sort of thing that Iktomi would have invented no doubt Bruce Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:42:38 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: More regarding "wa" > With wablus^ka and waglu=la we are dealing with a PS situation, though a > very complex one. There is a family of stems that refer to "vermin" or > something of that ilk, and cover a range of arthropods, mollusks, > annelids, reptiles, and amphibians. The general form is something like > wa-CrV(S), often extended with -ka. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jan 13 12:35:07 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:35:07 -0000 Subject: animate wa- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: easily done. Lakota having at least three wa- prefixes that I know of Bruce Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:00:15 -0700 (MST) Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Koontz John E To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: animate wa- > I'm embarassed to say that I had confused the wa-form for an indefintie > form, though, of course, it's the first person! (In my defense, in > Dhegiha, the first person is *a*, but I know it's wa in Dakota.) I > realized the mistake later and hadn't gotten around to correcting it. > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > > > John > > I believe this verb thikte can take an object like wichas^a wan thikte > > 'he murdered a man (not as in warfare)' > > Bruce > > > > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Koontz John E wrote: > > > > Here I see that Ingham lists for the agentive form thi'wic^hakte > > > > 'murderer' and for the abstract noun thi'wic^haktepi 'murder'. > > > > Interestingly, for the active verb he gives thi'kte/thi'wakte (not > > > > thi'kte/thi'wic^hakte) ... Apologies for putting Bruce > > > > in the spot, ... > > > > > > Might all this mean that Dakotan verbs need potentially to be categorized > > > for their "indefinite object" form or forms? > > > > > > JEK > > > > > > > > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Jan 13 13:38:25 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:38:25 -0600 Subject: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid In-Reply-To: <1073970820.40037e841f0e2@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Ditto, Mark. Thanks for the moderately useful finding aid! Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of are2 at buffalo.edu Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:14 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: JOD MicroFilm & finding aid Hey Mark! I got your useful finding aid! Thanks! I copied it for the ULC and also for NICC (which I'll keep til we get into a new building). I'm sorry to have missed you Friday. Hope you had a great trip. Thanks for the aid! -Ardis From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Jan 13 13:38:12 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:38:12 -0000 Subject: mircofilm digitization In-Reply-To: <200401130550.i0D5oB2c012331@firefox.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Pat. Have you seen it. How many pages? Bruce Date sent: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:50:11 CST Send reply to: siouan at lists.colorado.edu From: Pat Warren To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: mircofilm digitization > Bruce, > > > Also in our library somewhere, but lost, there > > is said to be a translation of the Pilgrim's Progress into Dakota. > > Yours > > Bruce > > The MN HIstorical Society has a copy of that. It's titled "Cante teca." > Stephen Riggs is listed as translator. 277p. > > Pat > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Tue Jan 13 14:11:41 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:11:41 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists reply Message-ID: Rory: Yes, send me OP list for carpentry. I teach carpentry here and want to use these terms for signs and verbal comands. By looking at your OP nouns i can begin to set up my own list. By doing these task related word lists, one discovers all the terms missing in a language. I have also discovered terms that have been mistranslated. My hide tanning list is on paper. Later, Louie From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:15:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:15:24 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: The estimate may be high, but a word of warning. The estimates for Dorsey's Quapaw and Kansa lexical files were both low by a fifth. Both were at least a thousand entries higher than the number listed. My guess is that the estimates were made by Ray DeMallie back about 1970 when he cataloged the Dorsey Collection for the Smithsonian. After initial measurements, it's probably based on the number of boxes of slips. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words, > > and it's probably high. > > The estimate antedates microfilming. I think they probably took an inch > of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches > in the file boxes. At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they > counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:18:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:18:24 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: > Incidentally, I suppose it would be tactful of us to let the NAA in on > what we're thinking of doing. Are we sure that wouldn't be like kicking a sleeping dog? Best to ask someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the photo-duplication bureaucracy there. Maybe Ives? Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:31:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:31:20 -0600 Subject: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate Message-ID: 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 Tue Jan 13 16:40:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:40:29 -0700 Subject: More regarding "wa" In-Reply-To: <4003E592.2763.564EB32@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote: > Yes the sort of thing that Iktomi would have invented no doubt Dorsey refers to a tradition that Is^tiniNkhe invented the bow. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 16:44:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:44:00 -0600 Subject: searching CDs in Microfilm to CD conversion. Message-ID: > I may have misunderstood some of my sources on this, and my information > may be out of date. The folks at the NAA seem, however, to be sadly > underfunded. I just talked with Ives about this last weekend and they're operating on a three-day week now. Underfunded would seem to be an understatement. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 13 17:02:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:02:59 -0700 Subject: Siouan word lists reply In-Reply-To: <005001c3d9df$2ac517c0$d200c90a@voced1> Message-ID: The new Lexicography list has been discussing semantic domains somewhat peripherally. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 13 21:45:11 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:45:11 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) about Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, that in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject prefixes. I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very strange indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active subject pronominals exclusively. So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals of active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? Bob From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Tue Jan 13 23:27:47 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:27:47 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) about > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, that > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject prefixes. > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very strange > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active subject > pronominals exclusively. > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals of > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > Bob > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Jan 13 23:44:10 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:44:10 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <007501c3da2c$e6a0a610$73430945@JIMM> Message-ID: This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "R. Rankin" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM > Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) > about > > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, > that > > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject > prefixes. > > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very > strange > > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active > subject > > pronominals exclusively. > > > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals > of > > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 14 00:11:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:11:04 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For what it's worth, I've argued that the -hki(k)- reflexive/reciprocal is an incorporated co-verb 'be with'. I forget where I delivered the paper, but, of course, I still have it. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has > argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a > direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross > linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's > odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 14 03:14:26 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:14:26 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists reply Message-ID: Hi Louie, > Rory: > Yes, send me OP list for carpentry. > I teach carpentry here and want to use these terms for signs and verbal > comands. > By looking at your OP nouns i can begin to set up my own list. > By doing these task related word lists, one discovers all the terms missing > in a language. > I have also discovered terms that have been mistranslated. > My hide tanning list is on paper. > Later, > Louie Here's what I've got out of the Dorsey dictionary which I have classed under "Woodworking". It's as is-- I seem to have misplaced whatever notes I got from vetting it with our speakers. The parsing and interpretations are mainly my own, though the leading gloss is generally Dorsey's. A few words are listed as specifically Omaha or Ponka, but most don't give any such indication. I've reversed the gloss to go from English category to OP word, which throws in a little confusion, and I've listed the words by semantic association (as makes sense to me) rather than alphabetically. I'd be interested in advice from Dhegihanists and comparativists on these, and certainly also in comparison terms from Dakota and other MVS languages. Please let me know if this is of any use to you. I agree with you about the value of terms like these in bringing out many verbs that are otherwise easily overlooked. I hope I can get to see your hide tanning paper someday. Some of the terms in it might help to elucidate some of the ones I'm still finding obscure in OP. I have lots of other categories too, including words about house structure and furniture. I'm not sure exactly how far "carpentry" extends for you! Best, Rory -------------------------------------------------------------- OP WOODWORKING TERMS axe maN'zephe metal-sharp(?) "sharp metal"? (I'm not sure if the p is aspirated or not, and would appreciate advice on this and on my tentative "sharp" translation.) hatchet maNzephe-z^iN'ga axe-little "little axe" axe handle maN'zephe-i'ba axe-projection(?) base of an axe head maN'zephe-ppa-hi'de axe-head-bottom (I didn't notice it in the dictionary, but this word implies that the word for axe-head is maN'zephe-ppa.) "adze" z^aN-i'-ga-goN wood-INST-IMPULSE-trim(?) "wood-trimmer" adze proper we'?e-z^aNi'gagoN hoe-adze broad-ax maN'zephe-z^aNi'gagoN axe-adze (The last three seem to imply a sharp-edged head at the end of a handle, which is swung to rough-trim lumbar. If the plane of the blade is parallel with the plane of the swinging handle, as with an axe, then it is an "axe wood-trimmer", or broad-ax. If the plane of the blade is perpendicular to the plane of the swinging handle, as with a hoe, then it is a "hoe wood-trimmer". In English, we distinguish axes from adzes in this manner, but have no general term for a "wood-trimmer".) shavings z^aN-ba'-s?u [Omaha] wood-PUSH-plane(?) "wood shavings"? plank, boards, lumber z^aN-bdha'ska wood-flat "flat wood" saw z^aN'-i-ba'-se wood-INST-PUSH-cut "something to cut wood by pushing" saw, cross-cut saw we'magi'xe (wa-i-ma-gixe) [Omaha] WA-INST-CUT-hiss(?) cross-cut saw z^aN'ttaNga-i'-ma'-se log-INST-CUT-cut hand-saw z^aN'-i-ma-se wood-INST-CUT-cut hand-saw we'bamoN (wa-i-ba-moN) [Ponka] WA-INST-PUSH-work(?) (In Omaha, this word means "file") circular saw u-noN'-sne at a sawmill in-FOOT-split sawmill z^aN'-u-noN'-sne-ti wood-in-FOOT-split-house (From the last two, it looks like unoN'sne is probably a shortened form of z^aN'u-noN'-sne.) sawdust z^aN-noN'-tube wood-FOOT-powder (Apparently the instrumental prefix noN-, FOOT, governs the action of a circular saw in a sawmill, and perhaps other mechanical actions occurring low to the ground.) log chain z^aN'-i-dhi-snu wood-INST-HAND-slide "wood snaker" z^aN'taNga-i'-dhi-snu log-INST-HAND-slide "log snaker" iron wedge maN'zewi'uga'sne (maN'ze-wa-i-u-ga-sne) (iron-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-split) rasp z^aN-i'-ba-moN wood-INST-PUSH-work moN-i'-dhi-xdha'de ??-INST-HAND-?? (Does anyone have any idea what moN and xdha'de might mean here?) hammer z^aNwe'thiN (z^aN-wa-i'-thiN) [Ponka] wood-WA-INST-hit "wood striker" iron hammer iN'?ewe'thiN (iN'?e-wa-i-thiN) stone-WA-INST-hit "stone striker" nails maN'zewi'ugadoN (man'ze-wa-i'-u-ga-doN) metal-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-force "metal things used to be pounded in" screws maN'ze-u-dhi'-gdheze metal-in-HAND-striped u-dhi'-gdheze in-HAND-striped screw-driver wi'udhi'doN (wa-i-u-dhi-doN) WA-INST-in-HAND-force "thing used for drawing in" auger, gimlet, we'dhibdhiN (wa-i'-dhi-bdhiN) [Ponka] corkscrew, WA-INST-HAND-turn(?) brace and bit wiu'dhi?u'de (wa-i-u'-dhi-?u'de) [Omaha] WA-INST-in-HAND-hole "thing for putting holes in things by hand" From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 14:42:13 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:42:13 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: You mean they're still active, right? Sorry, my original phraseology leaves the answer ambiguous. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimm GoodTracks" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:27 PM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "R. Rankin" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM > Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) > about > > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, > that > > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject > prefixes. > > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very > strange > > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active > subject > > pronominals exclusively. > > > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals > of > > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 14 14:49:28 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:49:28 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: >This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this.<< It, generally, appears that reflexive is regarded/treated as something pretty special and different from accusative. In ME and modern English, an accusative (refl.) no longer exists (myself, yourself etc.) - cf. http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:GhB7AxMX94cJ:www.public.asu.edu/~gelderen/REFL0.pdf+reflexive+zikh&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 In Yiddish, unlike in German, it's treated pretty special using _zikh_ through all persons, e.g. I wash myself - Ikh vash zekh (zikh) You wash yourself - Di (du) vashst zekh He washes himself - Er vasht zekh She washes herself - Zi vasht zekh We wash ourself - Mir vashn zekh You wash yourselves - Ir vasht zekh They wash themselves - Zey vashn zekh (literary forms in brackets) migluzaza (miglu'z^az^a) nigluzaza igluzaza (etc.) Even in German, I never 'felt' the reflexive pronouns (mich, dich, sich, uns, euch, sich) to be accusatives (rather than some kind of intransitive form). Interestingly, in Slavic and some Romance languages there are reflexive constructions that have no need of de-transitivizing (hence no such morphemes functioning that way as pointed to by Legendre!): e.g. in Rumanian/Spanish "aici se lucreaz?/aqu? se trabaja" (and many times in Slavic and Yiddish as well) the morphemes respective go with /intransitive/ verbs. (Okay, there are also transitives like e.g. Rumanian _se stie_ [se s^ti'ye] - it is known/one knows - which do not devaluate this fact stated!) Also, that's what I found in Dakota: 'Naicijin' [naN-i'ch?i-z^iN] from _nazin_ (an intransitive verb!). What do you guess is this proper name's meaning ;) ? BTW, in http://lakhota.nm.ru/sk2uni.htm#936 the examples for ic'ikte (to kill oneself) is translated erroneously as *_I ran_ etc. Alfred From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Jan 14 14:47:54 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:47:54 -0600 Subject: OP carpentry terms Message-ID: Rory: many thanks for thse carpentry terms. Now i will have to get to work and do one for the Dakota. Some of what you sent I don't remember seeing in any of the dictionaries. This will give me a chance to question the elders for the missing terms. Pidamaya, Louie From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 14 16:24:16 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:24:16 -0600 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? Rory From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed Jan 14 16:54:49 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:54:49 +0000 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: Aho, Rory! Yes, Joseph Casagrande noted in IJAL in the 1950s that Comanche wasabe was a Dhegiha loan. There are a few other forms that the languages share (/aho/ being one of them!). I think the Comanche word for 'shield' is also borrowed from a Dhegiha language. Best Anthony >>> rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu 14/01/2004 16:24:16 >>> Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jan 14 17:07:43 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:07:43 -0600 Subject: Comanche borrowings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's hka'wa in Osage, of course. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Comanche borrowings? Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? Rory From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Jan 14 17:37:38 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:37:38 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: Yes! As in IOM: Na'we haki'ch^e ke. I hurt my hand. NYi ukik^un re. Pour yourself some water. [lit.= give yourself] Aki'hta ke. I see myself. Winn/ Hochank [from Ken M's]: Hakic^gi's. I cut myself. Hirara'kikara. You take care of yourself. Hakipe'nkn. They waited for each other. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > You mean they're still active, right? Sorry, my original phraseology leaves the > answer ambiguous. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jimm GoodTracks" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:27 PM > Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > They are in IOM (Chiwere), as well as in Winnebago/ Hochank. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "R. Rankin" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:45 PM > > Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > > > > > > > At LSA I was talking with David Rood and Soeren Wichmann (from Denmark) > > about > > > Soeren's active-stative LSA paper. He made the point, confirmed by David, > > that > > > in Dakotan, reflexive verbs take the stative pronominal set as subject > > prefixes. > > > I don't know how that fact escaped me all this time, but I find it very > > strange > > > indeed, since, in Dhegiha, reflexives of active verbs take the active > > subject > > > pronominals exclusively. > > > > > > So my question is: In the other Siouan languages are subject pronominals > > of > > > active verbs still active when the verb is reflexivized? > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Jan 14 17:52:00 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:52:00 -0600 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: That appears straight from Ponca, as one of the late Elders' Ponca name was "Wasabe" (Black Bear). Some time ago, ten or more years ago, Lila Wistrand-Robinson, work on a Commanche Dictionary. I had the impression that she may have been contracted by the tribe. Nevertheless, I dont recall anyone ever mentioning this Dictionary by her, and I failed to ask her about several years ago when discussing other matters. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM Subject: Comanche borrowings? > > > > > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' > is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, > tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, > 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably > Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. > > Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': > puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' > or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? > > Rory > > > From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed Jan 14 18:14:16 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:14:16 +0000 Subject: Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: Dear Jimm! Oh, Lila's dictionary was published - James Armagost was co-author - and I have a copy back home in Yorkshire. It's far from perfect but it's still very useful. I know she did work on Jiwele too. She (or James?) spotted a number of laons from other Native languages into Comanche. Best Anthony >>> goodtracks at GBRonline.com 14/01/2004 17:52:00 >>> That appears straight from Ponca, as one of the late Elders' Ponca name was "Wasabe" (Black Bear). Some time ago, ten or more years ago, Lila Wistrand-Robinson, work on a Commanche Dictionary. I had the impression that she may have been contracted by the tribe. Nevertheless, I dont recall anyone ever mentioning this Dictionary by her, and I failed to ask her about several years ago when discussing other matters. Jimm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM Subject: Comanche borrowings? > > > > > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' > is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, > tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, > 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably > Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. > > Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': > puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' > or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? > > Rory > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 20:28:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:28:15 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: Thanks! So all the KI's behave the same way in IOM/WI. B. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimm GoodTracks" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:37 AM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > Yes! As in IOM: > Na'we haki'ch^e ke. I hurt my hand. > NYi ukik^un re. Pour yourself some water. [lit.= give yourself] > Aki'hta ke. I see myself. > > Winn/ Hochank [from Ken M's]: > Hakic^gi's. I cut myself. > Hirara'kikara. You take care of yourself. > Hakipe'nkn. They waited for each other. From heike.boedeker at netcologne.de Wed Jan 14 20:49:23 2004 From: heike.boedeker at netcologne.de (Heike =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6deker?=) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:23 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <400556F8.1060308@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 20:51:02 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:51:02 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: It wouldn't be typologically unusual if Lakota were an ergative language where transitivity had a lot to do with pronominal selection, but it seems a little peculiar to me to find it in Siouan. Here we'd expect the patient set with stative and (sometimes) experiencer subjects, not just intransitive ones. Biloxi doesn't distinguish active/stative pronominal sets, and it looks as though all the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages except Dakotan keep the active pronominals in reflexive constructions. What about Crow and Hidatsa? The 1st plural pronominal should reliably indicate which set is used (1st and 2nd singular might not, since the reflexive prefix begins with /i/). Or Mandan? One of my students *wrote a dissertation on the grammatical evolution of reflexives in European languages (Germanic, Romance and Slavic). It isn't as heavy on theory as I might have liked, but his implicational (evolutionary?) hierarchy was: 1. reflexive 2. reciprocal 3. inchoative (inan. subj.) 4. inchoative (anim. subj.) 5. impersonal (transitive) 6. impersonal (intransitive) 7. agent-licensing adverbial (inan. subj.) 8. agent-licensing adverbial (anim. subj.) 9. resultative (inan. subj.) 10. resultative (anim. subj.) 11. agentive passive (inan. subj.) 12. agentive passive (anim. subj.) It would be interesting if Dakotan reflexives split along these lines somehow, but I take it that all reflexive constructions with /ic?i-/ require the same subj. pronominal set. Bob *Sohn, Joong-Sun. 1998. _The Functional Evolution of the Reflexive Pronoun in Romance, Slavic and Germanic_. Univ. of Kansas Ph.D. dissertation. University Microfilms International. ----- Original Message ----- > This is not typologically all that unusual -- Geraldine Legendre has > argued that the reflexive in French is a de-transitivizing morpheme, not a > direct object (cf. the conjugation with "etre", e.g.) Cross > linguistically both patterns seem to occur. Of course, I agree that it's > odd to see fairly closely related languages split on this. > David From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 20:53:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:53:19 -0600 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: I recall that and I think I cited it in that BLS paper I did back in about 1996, although I can't recall if I cited a paper or just personal communication from JEK. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:11 PM Subject: Re: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? > For what it's worth, I've argued that the -hki(k)- reflexive/reciprocal is > an incorporated co-verb 'be with'. I forget where I delivered the paper, > but, of course, I still have it. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 21:07:31 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:07:31 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Those interested in the continuing analysis of wa- should acquire a copy of Ardis Eschenberg's SSILA paper (given last weekend). She has a really interesting analysis in terms of semantic aspect (i.e., aktionsart) and manages to explain the vast majority of usages in Omaha. My only qualms about the discussion of wa- thus far have to do with the fact that, from the historical perspective, there are OBVIOUSLY several different WA's. These must be kept separate if we're to understand the synchronic workings of the affix. After all, we wouldn't want to try to explain all the constructions with "to", "two" and "too" together in one category. Everybody accepts that Dakota 1st singular agent, wa-, is different from the plural indefinite patient, but Dhegihan 1st pl. patient, wa-a, must be distinguished from third pl. too. And there may be others. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 14 21:10:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:10:06 -0600 Subject: Job posting. Message-ID: I note in the Anthropological Newsletter that the University of Missouri, Columbia is advertising a full-time, tenure track position in anthropological linguistics with a specialty in historical linguistics and related areas. This would seem to be tailor-made for some of the participants on this list. Is Louanna retiring? Bob From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Jan 14 22:24:02 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:24:02 -0600 Subject: Job posting. Message-ID: She's in Chiapas for 3 months. Otherwise, she's retired. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:10 PM Subject: Job posting. > I note in the Anthropological Newsletter that the University of Missouri, > Columbia is advertising a full-time, tenure track position in anthropological > linguistics with a specialty in historical linguistics and related areas. This > would seem to be tailor-made for some of the participants on this list. > > Is Louanna retiring? > > Bob From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Jan 14 22:38:25 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:38:25 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: >>In Yiddish, unlike in German, it's treated pretty special using _zikh_ through all persons [...]<<<< >Did that pattern happen to develop under Slavic influence?<< I'd say 'jein' ;-) Here are a couple of interesting links I remember: http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol06/vol06.165 http://vulfplotkin.tripod.com/linguistica/yiddish.html (5b. Voice ...) Regards Alfred From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 14 22:53:56 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:53:56 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: > Everybody accepts that Dakota 1st singular agent, wa-, is different from the > plural indefinite patient, but Dhegihan 1st pl. patient, wa-a, must be > distinguished from third pl. too. And there may be others. Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? Maybe I just need to ask Ardis for a copy of her paper. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 00:45:30 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:45:30 -0700 Subject: Comanche borrowings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For what it's worth, wa + sapA is the basis of terms for blackbear in some Dakotan dialects, too, e.g., the CSD lists wasaben, as far as I can recall for Assiniboine or Stoney. This would correspond to Teton wasape=la. I've always assumed this borrowing had to be motivated by some sort of taboo avoidence process leading to borrowing of replacement terms for native terms. On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' is wasape? > (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, > University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995.) I assume that's a loan from > Dhegihan, probably Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 01:29:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:29:41 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask > again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If > so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the > "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? We know there are two elements by the logic that things come between them - something similar happens in Winnebago, too - and by the logic that the order is different in wea < wa-i-a or wa-gi-a and in awa. Discontinuous morphemes are not all that common in Siouan languages, but do occur, e.g., in some negatives, for example. You might think of this as a single logical morpheme with two constituent physical morphemes, though I think this rather distorts the historical notion of a morpheme. In some ways it's not different from the discontinuous (or infixing) stems that Siouan and Caddoan and other languages have, in those cases where the constituent elements neither one have a certain gloss outside of the gloss for the wholem e.g., OP z^a=...he or z^u=...he. We generally assume that there are two separate morphemes (at least) involved historically, in such cases, though I believe that in Caddoan and elsewhere it often turns out that the location of inserted material is not necessarily an old morpheme boundary. Sometimes it's just a phonologically suitable spot in a form for insertions - a place where the canons of the language permit insertions to occur, as in English infixations like abso-damn-lutely. (Far-freakin'-out is an example where the insertion occurs on a morpheme boundary.) I wish I knew some of the Caddoan examples. I might be able to track down some Navajo ones. > And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd > pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? No, we don't know, historically, though buried in what I've said in this thread are some arguments for believing that this might be the case. In the context of modern Dhegiha grammars I'd have to say that these wa's are definitely different. The possible historical connections are not of the sort that would enter into a speaker's intuitions, I think. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jan 15 02:52:10 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:52:10 EST Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: Crow reflexives look like this: 1s b-ihchi-waa-lichi' 'I hit myself' etc. 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lichi 3 ihchi-lichi' 1p b-ihchi-waa-lit-u'u 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lit-uu 3 ihchi-lit-u'u I have always assumed that b and d in the 1st and 2nd person forms were derived from stative bii and dii, with shortening of the long vowel before the initial i of the reflexive. The fact that balee doesn't appear in the 1pl form is not necessarily conclusive, since balee also does not occur with the emphatic/contrastive pronouns and with pronominal objects of postpositions, both of which are based on the stative forms. 1s biile'en 'I myself' etc. 2 diile'en 3 iile'en 1p bi'iluun 2 di'iluun 3 i'iluun 1s biss 'to me' etc. 2 diss 3 kuss 1p bi'iluss 2 di'iluss 3 kuss I have always thought that what was strange about the Lakota reflexives was that there was only one pronoun rather than two. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Thu Jan 15 04:42:41 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:42:41 -0600 Subject: Fw: [Lexicog] Comanche borrowings? Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Leman" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: [Lexicog] Comanche borrowings? > Jimm and Anthony, here is a response from Lila: > > Lila Robinson here about Comanche words: In my Comanche dictionary wasape > was given to me as the word for bear in general, possibly because that was > the only bear in that area and it was a black bear, I don't know. > > For horse I was given puki with the variations puku and puukU (the final u > being whispered). The word esikUhma was given for horse, but literally > means "gray male". I was also given the word tIhIya (I=barred i, which the > Comanches preferred written as barred u in the dictionary). I was not given > the word kobi for horse. Hope this is helpful to you.--Lila Wistrand > Robinson > > > > > > Dear Jimm! > > > > > > Oh, Lila's dictionary was published - James Armagost was co-author - > > > and I have a copy back home in Yorkshire. It's far from perfect but > > > it's still very useful. I know she did work on Jiwele too. She (or > > > James?) spotted a number of laons from other Native languages into > > > Comanche. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > >>> goodtracks at GBRonline.com 14/01/2004 17:52:00 >>> > > > That appears straight from Ponca, as one of the late Elders' Ponca name > > > was > > > "Wasabe" (Black Bear). > > > > > > Some time ago, ten or more years ago, Lila Wistrand-Robinson, work on > > > a > > > Commanche Dictionary. I had the impression that she may have been > > > contracted by the tribe. Nevertheless, I dont recall anyone ever > > > mentioning > > > this Dictionary by her, and I failed to ask her about several years ago > > > when > > > discussing other matters. > > > Jimm > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rory M Larson" > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:24 AM > > > Subject: Comanche borrowings? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anybody noticed that the Comanche word for 'black bear' > > > > is wasape? (Comanche Vocabulary. Manuel Garcia Rejon, > > > > tr. & ed. Daniel J. Gelo, University of Texas Press, Austin, > > > > 1995.) I assume that's a loan from Dhegihan, probably > > > > Ponka if not Kaw or Osage. > > > > > > > > Also, they seem to have three words for 'horse': > > > > puki, tIhIya and kobi. Kobi seems to mean 'mustang' > > > > or 'stallion'; is this another variant of caballo/kawa? > > > > > > > > Rory > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/HKE4lB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > From warr0120 at umn.edu Thu Jan 15 05:14:01 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:14:01 CST Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy Message-ID: Hi yall, I thought I'd give people some visuals on some of the things I'm doing with the texts I'm digitizing. I posted the first chapter from "Brave against the enemy - Thoka wan itkokhip ohitike kine he" (1944), part of the BIA Indian life reader series, a bilingual english-lakhota modern story. Here's the URI: http://free.hostdepartment.com/i/imageStorage/nodes/sources/afraidofhawk_br ave/index.html I know it works in IE 6. There's no xml in this sample, so I hope it'll work in other broswers too, even if it's not as pretty. The images are low resolution so they download fast. The lakhota text is unicode, so you have to have a unicode font installed. I use, and told the web page to ask your broswer for, Code 2000. You can get that font at this URI: http://home.att.net/~jameskass/CODE2000.ZIP I hope you find it interesting! Some other great uses of digital text are the work of Jan Ullrich. His site: http://www.inext.cz/siouan/ Pat From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 08:58:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:58:52 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > Crow reflexives look like this: > > 1s b-ihchi-waa-lichi' 'I hit myself' etc. > 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lichi > 3 ihchi-lichi' ... > I have always assumed that b and d in the 1st and 2nd person forms were > derived from stative bii and dii, with shortening of the long vowel before the > initial i of the reflexive. Could they be derived from active series pronominals like ba(a)- and da-? Of course, given that the underlying verb is also inflected, I can see why an oblique or stative form seems more natural. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 15 16:05:06 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:05:06 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Thanks, John! That's a huge help. So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while P3 is we'-[stem]. In causatives, P12 is [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, with short a. Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same (historical) *wa as that used in P3. Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? Thanks, Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: WA- once more. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/14/2004 07:29 PM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask > again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If > so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the > "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? We know there are two elements by the logic that things come between them - something similar happens in Winnebago, too - and by the logic that the order is different in wea < wa-i-a or wa-gi-a and in awa. Discontinuous morphemes are not all that common in Siouan languages, but do occur, e.g., in some negatives, for example. You might think of this as a single logical morpheme with two constituent physical morphemes, though I think this rather distorts the historical notion of a morpheme. In some ways it's not different from the discontinuous (or infixing) stems that Siouan and Caddoan and other languages have, in those cases where the constituent elements neither one have a certain gloss outside of the gloss for the wholem e.g., OP z^a=...he or z^u=...he. We generally assume that there are two separate morphemes (at least) involved historically, in such cases, though I believe that in Caddoan and elsewhere it often turns out that the location of inserted material is not necessarily an old morpheme boundary. Sometimes it's just a phonologically suitable spot in a form for insertions - a place where the canons of the language permit insertions to occur, as in English infixations like abso-damn-lutely. (Far-freakin'-out is an example where the insertion occurs on a morpheme boundary.) I wish I knew some of the Caddoan examples. I might be able to track down some Navajo ones. > And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd > pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? No, we don't know, historically, though buried in what I've said in this thread are some arguments for believing that this might be the case. In the context of modern Dhegiha grammars I'd have to say that these wa's are definitely different. The possible historical connections are not of the sort that would enter into a speaker's intuitions, I think. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Thu Jan 15 17:11:53 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:11:53 EST Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: In a message dated 1/15/2004 2:01:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > > Crow reflexives look like this: > > > > 1s b-ihchi-waa-lichi' 'I hit myself' etc. > > 2 d-i'hchi-laa-lichi > > 3 ihchi-lichi' > ... > > I have always assumed that b and d in the 1st and 2nd person forms were > > derived from stative bii and dii, with shortening of the long vowel before > the > > initial i of the reflexive. > > Could they be derived from active series pronominals like ba(a)- and da-? > > Of course, given that the underlying verb is also inflected, I can see why > an oblique or stative form seems more natural. > Theoretically the b and d of the reflexives could be derived from the active set, but then we would have to explain why there are two active pronouns in a reflexive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 15 17:46:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:46:33 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: > Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? As far as I know, it's the same across Dhegiha. While I'm very hesitant to relate wa- '3pl indef.' to wa-a- '1st pl patient', it remains a possibility. In French, for example, the 3rd person impersonal pronoun "on" [oN] meaning 'one', as in 'one doesn't speak unless spoken to', has become the de-facto 1st plural pronoun for a majority of French speakers in both France and Canada. It is simply replacing "nous" in the subject role. It continues to be used with 3rd person verb agreement. So 'impersonal' > '1st pl' isn't out of the question at all. Synchronically they've split however. From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 15 16:58:35 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:58:35 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:05 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WA- once more. Thanks, John! That's a huge help. So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while P3 is we'-[stem]. In causatives, P12 is [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, with short a. Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same (historical) *wa as that used in P3. Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? Thanks, Rory Koontz John E o.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: WA- once more. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/14/2004 07:29 PM Please respond to siouan On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Thanks to Bob and John for pointing this out. But I'm going to ask > again: Is this wa-a actually two separate elements, i.e. wa + a ? If > so, are these reversed in the causatives, where we have awa- for the > "us" form (but wa- for the "them" form)? We know there are two elements by the logic that things come between them - something similar happens in Winnebago, too - and by the logic that the order is different in wea < wa-i-a or wa-gi-a and in awa. Discontinuous morphemes are not all that common in Siouan languages, but do occur, e.g., in some negatives, for example. You might think of this as a single logical morpheme with two constituent physical morphemes, though I think this rather distorts the historical notion of a morpheme. In some ways it's not different from the discontinuous (or infixing) stems that Siouan and Caddoan and other languages have, in those cases where the constituent elements neither one have a certain gloss outside of the gloss for the wholem e.g., OP z^a=...he or z^u=...he. We generally assume that there are two separate morphemes (at least) involved historically, in such cases, though I believe that in Caddoan and elsewhere it often turns out that the location of inserted material is not necessarily an old morpheme boundary. Sometimes it's just a phonologically suitable spot in a form for insertions - a place where the canons of the language permit insertions to occur, as in English infixations like abso-damn-lutely. (Far-freakin'-out is an example where the insertion occurs on a morpheme boundary.) I wish I knew some of the Caddoan examples. I might be able to track down some Navajo ones. > And do we know that the wa- in wa-a is different from the wa- in the 3rd > pl. patient, or might they be the same with an extra -a added for "us"? No, we don't know, historically, though buried in what I've said in this thread are some arguments for believing that this might be the case. In the context of modern Dhegiha grammars I'd have to say that these wa's are definitely different. The possible historical connections are not of the sort that would enter into a speaker's intuitions, I think. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 18:48:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:48:08 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with > a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. That would be a reasonable supicion, however, I'm not aware of any pattern of accentuation that would suggest that P12 is waa- when there isn't something between the two parts. It's as if there are three variants: wa- ~ wa...a- and a-wa-. Certainly it would be worth listening for length in P12 vs. other instances of "wa." As I recall - can't do this one from memory - wa- Obj3p is accented in some paradigms. > In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while > P3 is we'-[stem]. So presumably weea- and wee- > In causatives, P12 is > [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, > with short a. We might substute some "variable" like CAUSATIVE for =dhe, since this also occurs with =khidhe and presumably =kkidhe and =gidhe, too. > Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and > *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in > order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same > (historical) *wa as that used in P3. This is correct. One possible source for the extra -a- is locative a-. > Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? This is true across Dhegiha as far as I know. I have not investigated the matter in Quapaw or Kaw. I believe things are the same in Osage, except that the Osage (and other) datives are rather different from those in OP. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 19:07:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:07:18 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <167.2a8a5ad3.2d3823d9@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > Theoretically the b and d of the reflexives could be derived from the active > set, but then we would have to explain why there are two active pronouns in a > reflexive. I asked, because there are some cases of just this A-REFL-A-VERB pattern in Winnebago, if I recall the examples from the Miner Field Lexicon correctly, and both Dakotan and Winnebago have some cases of REFL-A-VERB, too, as I recall. The sense of the REFL element is not always reflexive, but it matches *hki(k) in form and has some plausibly related sense like reciprocal or 'in the middle' or 'be with'. Because of this in MVS it looks like the source of the construction (with formant -kki(k)-) is something like A-WITH A-verb, where WITH is *hkik(e). Of course, I don't know if the Crow example is necessarily a case of this, too. There are some instances of this comitative in Dakotan, but the examples I recall best are from Dhegiha where the comitative co-verb is *z^o=...kre. So, in the Dhegiha comitative cases we have something syntactically parallel, but with a different formant. z^u'=a-gdhe b-dha A1 with A1-go 'I went with him' (Example constructed, but I believe it's essentially correct.) Forms with this syntax would naturally have doubled agent marking, and might remain A-WITH-A-VERB or develop along the lines A-WITH-VERB or WITH-A-VERB. A comitative origin is more consistent with the evolution of a reciprocal, I think, than a reflexive, but the Dhegiha and Winnebago-Chiwere examples with *hki(k)- are all reflexive/reciprocal, and the Dakotan case (*hki- reciprocal and 'in the middle' and some *hkik(e) commitatives) is non-reflexive, with another formant yielding the reflexive. So perhaps the reflexive/reciprocals extend an original reciprocal. From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Thu Jan 15 20:09:26 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:09:26 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, What you are recalling below at ****** is perhaps that in Osage wa' is accented when P3p with a dhe- inflectable initial verb, but not other verbs, and wa valence reducer is not accented with the same dhe- verbs. And as I said in an earlier email, wa P1p and wa P3p are not differentiated by length in Osage, as far as I know. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:48 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WA- once more. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > So I understand that "us" (P12) in OP is normally pronounced waa-, with > a long a, while "them" (P3) is pronounced wa- with a short a. That would be a reasonable supicion, however, I'm not aware of any pattern of accentuation that would suggest that P12 is waa- when there isn't something between the two parts. It's as if there are three variants: wa- ~ wa...a- and a-wa-. Certainly it would be worth listening for length in P12 vs. other instances of "wa." *****As I recall - can't do this one from memory - wa- Obj3p is accented in some paradigms.******* > In instrumentals or datives, P12 is we'a-[stem], with a short a, while > P3 is we'-[stem]. So presumably weea- and wee- > In causatives, P12 is > [target]-awa-dhe, with both a's short, while P3 is [target]-wa-dhe, > with short a. We might substute some "variable" like CAUSATIVE for =dhe, since this also occurs with =khidhe and presumably =kkidhe and =gidhe, too. > Thus, P12 in OP apparently involves two historical morphemes, *wa and > *a, which can be split by an intermediate morpheme, or reversed in > order. The *wa involved in P12 is likely, but not certainly, the same > (historical) *wa as that used in P3. This is correct. One possible source for the extra -a- is locative a-. > Is this all correct? If so, is it the same across Dhegiha? This is true across Dhegiha as far as I know. I have not investigated the matter in Quapaw or Kaw. I believe things are the same in Osage, except that the Osage (and other) datives are rather different from those in OP. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 20:43:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:43:13 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <001801c3dba3$79b40920$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > John, What you are recalling below at ****** is perhaps that in Osage wa' is > accented when P3p with a dhe- inflectable initial verb, but not other verbs, > and wa valence reducer is not accented with the same dhe- verbs. That's it! > And as I said in an earlier email, wa P1p and wa P3p are not differentiated > by length in Osage, as far as I know. And note that Carolyn has been looking carefully at length in Osage. But, with a motivated curiosity that I won't go into here, has anyone noticed anything different about the (L)HL pitch contour with these two Dhegiha wa's? This is something it's easy to ignore, especially if one is thinking in terms of "accent" and/or length. In my (actually fairly limited) experience, the cues for accentuation are rather different in Dhegiha from the cues in English. If you listen with "English ears," you can easily be misled. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 15 20:34:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:34:53 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > ..., and the Dakotan case (*hki- reciprocal and 'in the middle' and some > *hkik(e) commitatives) ... *hkik(e) comes out khic^a, in case that's not clear. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 15 22:16:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:16:49 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: What about verbs with locative prefixes like i-? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." > I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. > Carolyn From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 05:21:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:21:57 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <007001c3dbb6$3bf52c00$12b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What about verbs with locative prefixes like i-? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Q." > > I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. Well, it's LaFlesche, but i'pize ("i'-bi-c,e") 'thirsty' P1 oNdhoN'pize P2 i'dhipize P12 wea'piza=i (Note wea'- < wa-i-a-) This is the onlyi-locative example offered outright in the dicitonary that I have noticed. Forms with different objects tend not to occur However, as I said, datives are a bit different in Osage, and the pattenr there features regular, but accented pronominals alternating with ki' in the third person, rather like the ka-instrumental forms, except those have ka- in the third person. Omaha-Ponca's fusions of the pronominals with dative (g)i- do not occur. ki'pakkoN ("gi'-ba-k.oN") 'angry' P1 oN'pakkoN P2 dhi'pakkoN P12 wa'pakkoN=i ki'zu ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' P1 oN'zu P2 dhi'zu P12 wa'zu=i As far as the -a-wa- pattern: e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to' P1 e'= ki-p- pi-m- oN P2 e'= ki-s^-pi-z^-oN P3 e'= kip- pi- oN P12 e'=awa-kip- pi- oN This is what I call a fun verb. hni'=...cce ("hni'-t.se") 'cold' P1 hni=oN-cce P2 hni'=dhi'-cce P12 hni=a-wa-cca=i oaNppe=...hi ("noN-p.e'-hi") 'hungry' P1 noN'ppe=oNhi P2 noN'ppe=dhehi [sic, for dhihi?] P12 noN'ppe=awahi=i Osage Rituals s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 05:29:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:29:39 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Osage Rituals > > s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' Sorry, this was 'I make them' (homophonous with 'he makes us'). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 06:27:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:27:45 -0700 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I asked, because there are some cases of just this A-REFL-A-VERB pattern > in Winnebago, if I recall the examples from the Miner Field Lexicon > correctly, and both Dakotan and Winnebago have some cases of REFL-A-VERB, > too, as I recall. Miner 1815 kiika'waz^a' 'wipe oneself', A1 ha-kipa'z^a ~ hakika'waz^a Think A1 *wa-hki'k- paz^a ~ *wa-hki'-p-paz^a A3 *hkii'k-paz^a Recall that the first persons are ha (regular) ~ reflexes of *p (syncopating). I've reversed the alternative first persons. The first (as Miner gives them) is doubly inflected (regular prefixal and infixed syncopating), whereas the second is singly inflected (regular prefixal). Compare Miner 1922 kiiku'rus 'withdraw', A1 hakiku'rus, which has only the prefixal pattern. Now compare Miner 1829 kiiru's 'take for oneself, adopt', A1 hakidu's (d < *pr), which has only the doubly inflected pattern. Finally Miner 1839 kiiwa'gax 'take, draw picture', A1 kiipa'gax is only inflected by the infixed pattern (A3 *hkii'-pakax, A1 *hkii'-p-pakax). Miner 1813 kiik?o' 'shave oneself', has first person hikik?o'. I think this should be hiNkik?o', making it a stative pattern verb. I suspect this is an experiencer pattern. K?o' is 'scrape', so the pattern is something like '(face) oneself to be scraped', where 'face' is the third person subject and the patient for which the verb is inflected is the experiencer. Because the experiencer is experiencing the scraping of his own body, the stem is reflexive. This is a bit convoluted, but not too far from OP git?e 'one's kin to die', which is reflexive possessive and agrees with the experiencer whose kin has died, e.g., iNt?e 'mine has died; my own has died; mine is dead to me'. As far as I know, this information is only in Miner's Field Lexicon. It does not appear in any of the grammars of Winnebago to date. > ... and the Dakotan case (*hki- reciprocal and 'in the middle' and some > *hkik(e) commitatives) is non-reflexive, with another formant yielding > the reflexive. See Boas & Deloria, pp. 79-80. 'in two parts' khi-c^a'ksa 'he cuts it in two by striking' (kaksa) 'in contact' wakhiks^aN 'I wrestle with him' (a small step to 'we wrestle each other') P. 80 refers to the reciprocal. P. 79 refers to "the obsolete stem khi which appears in adverbial form as kic^hic^a 'to be with'." This is in form (though apparently not in sense) a reflexive possessive of *khic^a 'to be with' (< *hkika). Compare OP z^u'=gi-gdhe 'be with one's own' vs. z^u'=gdhe 'be with'. A reference here to p. 138 draws our attention to wikho's^kalaka waN khos^ka'laka waN kic^hi yaNka' girl boy with was sitting Boas & Deloria say kic^hi 'with one person' ... derived from an obsolete verb khi. Buechel (p. 300) gives examples with kic^(h)i' 'with, together with' and kic^(h)i'c^a 'to be with, together with, following with, on the same side with; ...', e.g., he uNki'c^(h)ic^a=pi 'he is with us'. The "obsolete verb khi" seems to be Boas & Delroai's way of saying, "we deduce the existence of this stem, but it is unattested in itself." Buechel, p. 298, mentions that khi "indicates that the action is performed through the middle." "It does not, however, draw the accent." JEK From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 14:00:24 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:00:24 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, as 'I make them' this form is fine. wa P3p + a 'A1s' metathesizes to awa regularly. -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:30 PM To: Siouan List Subject: Re: WA- once more. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Osage Rituals > > s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' Sorry, this was 'I make them' (homophonous with 'he makes us'). From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 14:00:17 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:00:17 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Q." > > I don't find any difference in Osage between wa- 'us' and wa- 'them'. Carolyn says: LaFlesche's data is wrong according to everything I have from speakers. John, in your examples below, and I've numbered them: 1. the form for P1p (or "P12") would be with wa only, not wa-i-a> wea. 2. in this one you haven't given the P3p to compare with P1p, but both should be wa as you have shown for P12. 3. these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p 4. this should be wa in P12. Some verbs do vary in P3p only, between ki and wa, and this one appears to have ki for P3, not surprisingly. 5., 6., 7. group with 2., should be wa for P1p. Some of the verbs listed here I don't have, but I have scores with the same pattern of patient pronominals, and never any with awa in P1p, always wa. There are hundreds if not thousands of errors in the LaFlesche dictionary, some as systematic as this one seems to be. Take, for example, forms with n- (ne, sni, sne, etc) in A2s, which are likely Omaha, since such forms never existed in Osage, but are found throughout the LF dictionary. Is the P1p form in Omaha wa-a or awa? Carolyn ******************** John said: 1. Well, it's LaFlesche, but i'pize ("i'-bi-c,e") 'thirsty' P1 oNdhoN'pize P2 i'dhipize P12 wea'piza=i (Note wea'- < wa-i-a-) This is the onlyi-locative example offered outright in the dicitonary that I have noticed. Forms with different objects tend not to occur. 2. However, as I said, datives are a bit different in Osage, and the pattenr there features regular, but accented pronominals alternating with ki' in the third person, rather like the ka-instrumental forms, except those have ka- in the third person. Omaha-Ponca's fusions of the pronominals with dative (g)i- do not occur. ki'pakkoN ("gi'-ba-k.oN") 'angry' P1 oN'pakkoN P2 dhi'pakkoN P12 wa'pakkoN=i 3. ki'zu ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' P1 oN'zu P2 dhi'zu P12 wa'zu=i 4. As far as the -a-wa- pattern: e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to' P1 e'= ki-p- pi-m- oN P2 e'= ki-s^-pi-z^-oNTher P3 e'= kip- pi- oN P12 e'=awa-kip- pi- oN This is what I call a fun verb. 5. hni'=...cce ("hni'-t.se") 'cold' P1 hni=oN-cce P2 hni'=dhi'-cce P12 hni=a-wa-cca=i 6. oaNppe=...hi ("noN-p.e'-hi") 'hungry' P1 noN'ppe=oNhi P2 noN'ppe=dhehi [sic, for dhihi?] P12 noN'ppe=awahi=i 7. Osage Rituals s^a'pe=awadhe 'dark he-makes-us' From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 16 15:26:10 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:26:10 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > Is the P1p form in Omaha wa-a or awa? Before the causitives -dhe and -khidhe, it is awa. Otherwise, the normal form is wa(a), not awa. Prior to the present discussion, I had assumed it was wa, just as in P3p. I think we need to check with our speakers to find out whether it should be considered wa or waa. Perhaps Vida or Ardis could help us with this. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 16 15:35:31 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:35:31 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: >* 3. ki'zu ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' >* >* P1 oN'zu >* P2 dhi'zu >* P12 wa'zu=i > 3. these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p Any particular reason for the long aa' here? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 16 15:41:10 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:41:10 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: Okay, now I'm dying to know what the situation is with the "us" and "them" forms in Kaw and Quapaw. Bob? :-) Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 17:27:52 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:27:52 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: LaFlesche per Koontz: 3. ki'zo ("gi'-c,u") 'happy' P1 oN(oN)'zo P2 dhi(i)'zo P3 ki(i)'zo(=pe (?)) P12 wa(a)'zo=pe CQ These are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p > Any particular reason for the long aa' here? Yes, the length/shift of accent is the mark of the dative paradigm, which has ki in the third person and accented (long) pronominals in the non-zero pronominal forms (with ki deleted). Thus, except in the third person, this paradigm resembles the OP ga-instrumental (and Os ka-instrumental) paradigms. The third persons have ki'- vs. ka-, but the first persons both have aa'-, etc. OP's datives are unique in Dhegiha. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 17:22:21 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:22:21 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <000b01c3dc39$127d6440$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > LaFlesche's data is wrong according to everything I have from speakers. > John, in your examples below, and I've numbered them: > 1. the form for P1p (or "P12") would be with wa only, not wa-i-a> wea. So, P1 oNdhoNpize, but P12 wapize? No sign of i at all, let alone extra -a- ? At a minimum I;d have expected we'-, if not we'-a-. > 2. in this one you haven't given the P3p to compare with P1p, but both > should be wa as you have shown for P12. Sorry, LaFlesche doesn't supply P3p forms as a rule. (As you know, of course, but some reading this might not.) In the datives LaFlesche agrees with the contemporary Osage dative model. The only traces of dative ki- are in the third person in ki'- and perhaps in the fact that the pronominals are accented (suggesting contraction with something). However, I'd be surprised to find subject use of wa 3p at all. > 3. these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p Oops, yes, I should have changed LF's OP-influenced u to o. > 4. this should be wa in P12. Some verbs do vary in P3p only, between ki > and wa, and this one appears to have ki for P3, not surprisingly. > 5., 6., 7. group with 2., should be wa for P1p. > LaFlesche: > e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to' > > P1 e'= ki-p- pi-m- oN > P2 e'= ki-s^-pi-z^-oNTher > P3 e'= kip- pi- oN > P12 e'=awa-kip- pi- oN > Some of the verbs listed here I don't have, but I have scores with the same > pattern of patient pronominals, and never any with awa in P1p, always wa. I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts. From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Fri Jan 16 18:05:44 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (bi1 at soas.ac.uk) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:05:44 -0000 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? In-Reply-To: <400556F8.1060308@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: The reflexive can often mean 'for oneself' . So I suppose it would mean 'stands up for himself' Bruce Date sent: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:49:28 > Also, that's what I found in Dakota: 'Naicijin' [naN-i'ch?i-z^iN] from > _nazin_ (an intransitive verb!). What do you guess is this proper name's > meaning ;) ? > > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Jan 16 18:40:15 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:40:15 +0100 Subject: New topic -- stative pronouns with reflexives? Message-ID: I found it in ... as ...: Standing Rock UPPER YANCKTONNAI 28 July - 10 August 1885 Number Number in Family Indian Name. English Name. 8 4 Naicijin Stands to Defend Himself Obviously, the "to defend" is implied in the use of the reflexive form here. BTW, also in German, the intransitive verb _stehen_ (to stand) is sometimes used reflexive: _sich stehen_. Alfred >The reflexive can often mean 'for oneself' . So I suppose it would mean 'stands up for himself' - Bruce<< >>Also, that's what I found in Dakota: 'Naicijin' [naN-i'ch?i-z^iN] from _nazin_ (an intransitive verb!). What do you guess is this proper name's meaning ;) ?<<<< From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 16 19:10:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:10:06 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: At this point I'd have to say I'm uncomfortable going on at length with the thread when no one wants to get down and dirty, make the necessary recordings and do the spectrograms. I am in the process of retranscribing all my field notes from the CD's that the Kaw Nation kindly made from my tapes, but this is a long term process and I don't have any examples yet that contrast these two morphemes. I suspect the general pattern is the same as the other Dhegiha languages, but we'll have to see. And for Quapaw we can only rely on Dorsey. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: RE: WA- once more. > > > > > Okay, now I'm dying to know what the situation is with > the "us" and "them" forms in Kaw and Quapaw. Bob? :-) > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 16 19:05:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:05:18 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. Message-ID: You can Google "Praat" and download a phonetic analysis program and make your own measurements. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: RE: WA- once more. > > > > > Carolyn wrote: > > Is the P1p form in Omaha wa-a or awa? > > Before the causitives -dhe and -khidhe, it is awa. > Otherwise, the normal form is wa(a), not awa. > Prior to the present discussion, I had assumed it > was wa, just as in P3p. I think we need to check > with our speakers to find out whether it should be > considered wa or waa. Perhaps Vida or Ardis could > help us with this. > > Rory > > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 16 20:31:20 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:31:20 -0600 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <004d01c3dc64$66779860$0cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I agree with Bob. Unfortunately, I don't have CDs of my taped recordings, so I probably can't use the Google tool. I will work toward this, though, and get more than my impressions and memory of my impressions to go by for vowel length. But I do know that I never heard awa in P1p--that would have instantly grabbed my attention. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of R. Rankin Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:10 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WA- once more. At this point I'd have to say I'm uncomfortable going on at length with the thread when no one wants to get down and dirty, make the necessary recordings and do the spectrograms. I am in the process of retranscribing all my field notes from the CD's that the Kaw Nation kindly made from my tapes, but this is a long term process and I don't have any examples yet that contrast these two morphemes. I suspect the general pattern is the same as the other Dhegiha languages, but we'll have to see. And for Quapaw we can only rely on Dorsey. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: RE: WA- once more. > > > > > Okay, now I'm dying to know what the situation is with > the "us" and "them" forms in Kaw and Quapaw. Bob? :-) > > Rory > > From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 16 20:27:58 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:27:58 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: Rory asks about Quapaw and Kaw. My Quapaw conjugation data are more easily accessed than the Kaw right now, but all data are from Dorsey, who failed to record vowel length. Here are some paradigms. There are distinct reflexes of the instrumental i-. be thirsty, dry 1sg aNda'Nbize 2sg i'dibize 3sg i'bize 1pl we'bizawe (we'- from *wa + i' + a-) be anxious to do sthg 1sg aNna'Nhitta 2sg i'dihitta 3sg i'hitta 1pl we'hittawe swell up 1sg aNna'Npa 2sg i'dipa 3sg i'pa 1pl we'pawe And the final paradigm, o'z^eda 'be weary', which clearly shows that there are two /a/ vowels associated with the 1st pl, one preceding and one following the instrumental o-. 1sg o'Nz^eda (o'N- from *o + a'N) 2sg odi'z^eda 3sg oz^e'da 1pl o'waz^edawe (o'wa- from *wa + o' + a-) It is important in the last paradigm to note carefully the *underlying sequence of morphs. This can be determined from the accentual pattern of the form. Recall that MVS *wa+o' > accented o'. And we have accented o'- here, which shows that the wa- portion of the 1st pl pronominal in fact precedes the o'-. Then the phonological sequence of o- + a- (where -a- is the second /a/ of wa-a- '1st pl pat.) entails an epenthetic /w/ between the two vowels. It is easy to misanalyze this form as locative o- followed by pronominal wa-(a)-, but this is wrong, and the accentual pattern proves it. That's about it for now. We can see that there is evidence that there are two /a/'s in the 1st pl. patient in Quapaw, just as in the other languages of the subgroup. We can also see that locatives occur inserted between the two /a/'s of wa-a-. None of this substitutes for making the necessary measurements to determine just how vowel length asserts itself in these paradigms and those with 3pl objects. FWIW Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 16 22:37:36 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:37:36 -0700 Subject: WA- once more. In-Reply-To: <002e01c3dc6f$b35c0a20$1009500a@carolynwe2gywq> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote: > I agree with Bob. Unfortunately, I don't have CDs of my taped recordings, > so I probably can't use the Google tool. I don't know praat (a lot of people say that, anyway), but my guess is that all you have to do would be to play your tape into the input jack of your sound card (where the microphone plugs in) while running the record tool to create a file and then apply praat to the file. Praat presumably lets you pin down a section of the sound file and run various tools against it. Bob's CDs just represent a series of sound files taken in like this and copied to CD. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 17 06:02:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:02:45 -0700 Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in > the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts. I found "ni a-dsi wa-kshi tha" 'permit us to cross this water', for which I tentatively offer: niN aci wa-ks^idha water ??? cause us This lacks the extra a- of a-wa- in the same way that it is missing in the speech of the contemporary Osage speakers with whom Carolyn has worked. I'm not sure the osrit* files in the Siouan Archives are the whole set of LaFlesche Osage ritual texts, but this is almost the only example of 'us' in them. The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. Osage has ks^ for kh before i. I'm fairly certain of the causative, in spite of LaFlesche's word boundary between ks^i and dha. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 17 07:27:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:27:59 -0700 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. In-Reply-To: <001901c3dc6f$4db00e10$11b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Rory asks about Quapaw and Kaw. My Quapaw conjugation data are more > easily accessed than the Kaw right now, but all data are from Dorsey, > who failed to record vowel length. Here are some paradigms. There are > distinct reflexes of the instrumental i-. > > be thirsty, dry > 1sg aNda'Nbize > 2sg i'dibize > 3sg i'bize > 1pl we'bizawe (we'- from *wa + i' + a-) The -a- is not explicit in the surface form here as it is in Omaha-Ponca, but it might well be here historically. As I understood Carolyn, she was saying 1pl here would be wa'biza=pe in Osage, which doesn't preserve the i-locative either. If I misunderstood and it was we'biza=pe (or, at least, P12 (1pl) we- with other i-locative statives or transitives, then we might have to consider that P12 lacks "auxiliary" a on the surface in a range of forms in Os and Qu. > And the final paradigm, o'z^eda 'be weary', which clearly shows that > there are two /a/ vowels associated with the 1st pl, one preceding and > one following the instrumental o-. > > 1sg o'Nz^eda (o'N- from *o + a'N) > 2sg odi'z^eda > 3sg oz^e'da > 1pl o'waz^edawe (o'wa- from *wa + o' + a-) > > It is important in the last paradigm to note carefully the *underlying > sequence of morphs. This can be determined from the accentual pattern > of the form. Recall that MVS *wa+o' > accented o'. This seems pretty convincing to me. What happens with P3p wa, if there's any data on it? I didn't mention what happens with OP P12 wa-a- and the a- or u-locatives in OP, because, frankly, I couldn't remember. Here are forms for ui'dha 'tell', i.e., u-gi'-dha (underlying morphemes): 'tell me' iNw-iN'- dha < *u-iN-dha 'tell you' u- dhi'- dha 'tell him' u i'-dha 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha 'tell them' u'-wa- gi-dha These are forms with third person subjects or imperatives. The 'tell them' form has the original wa merged with u (< *o) as u'-, and then a "new" transparent wa has been inserted after u'. This is the normal pattern with something like "u-locative verbs with animate objects," i.e., there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. With the a-locative P12 and P3p are indistinguishable, e.g., a'gaz^i 'to command' yields wa'gaz^i 'he commanded us; he commanded them'. (This is Dorsey, with no marking of long vowels in the modern sense.) The P12 a-wa- variant occurs with the u-locative and also with causatives, as Rory has pointed out. I think this last is a special case of occurring "after incorporations." You also find z^u'=awagdhe 'with us' < z^u'=gdhe 'be with' naNppe'=awahiN=i 'we were hungry' < naNppe'=hiN 'be hungry' naN'=awappe 'he fears us' < naN'=ppe 'fear' e=a'wagaN 'let us be so' < e=...gaN 'be so' This was one of the patterns in LaFlesche's Osage that Carolyn reports as not being found among speakers, and so representing one of LaFlesche's Omaha-isms. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 17 15:36:05 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:36:05 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: > > be thirsty, dry > > 1sg aNda'Nbize > > 2sg i'dibize > > 3sg i'bize > > 1pl we'bizawe (we'- from *wa + i' + a-) > > The -a- is not explicit in the surface form here as it is in Omaha-Ponca, > but it might well be here historically. It may be there synchronically too since JOD didn't transcribe length routinely. For Quapaw there'll probably never be any way to know. We know from the last paradigm I gave that the second /a/ is present organically in QU. > This seems pretty convincing to me. What happens with P3p wa, if there's > any data on it? I'll try to check. I'll have to go to the slip files for that. It took me too long to scrounge up the examples I did find, and I didn't have time the other day to do 3pl. > 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface? Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 17 18:15:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:15:48 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: > > This seems pretty convincing to me. What happens with P3p wa, if there's > > any data on it? JOD neglected to enter wa- as an entry in his dictionary slip file, so any and all examples are going to have to be culled from individual slips for particular verbs or from his Quapaw texts, which are all in printed form, not computer accessible. I suspect this project may be left for another generation of scholars. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 17 22:22:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:22:26 -0700 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. In-Reply-To: <004a01c3dd0f$b1c34c00$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha > > Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface? I don't know what moitivated Dorsey to record it in this fashion. I have to assume he heard a difference between ua' and wa, but I don't have this form from elicitation. He also records first person agents as ua'..., so he is consistant. On the other hand the Hahn ms. grammar of Ponca records first person agents as uwa:'-. Many verbs in u- don't take -wa- 'them' with plural objects. Hahn gives uwa:'thiN 'I hit them'. Unfortunately, she doesn't give 'I hit him', but most other 'I > him' forms on regular first persons are also uwa:'-, e.g., uwa:'gas^a 'I travelled', so we can't assume u-wa-a-. She also doesn't give 'he his us'. The form labelled 'he hit us' is actually 'he his you', and it looks like in copying an earlier form of the paradigm she collapsed these two lines, which would have been in succession. In the abstracted paradigm (no attached verb), p. 77, she does give (u)wa- 'I > him', but (u)wa:'- 'I > them' and (u)wa:'- 'he > us'. Interestingly, she never gives u-awa- for 'he us'! For example, uwa:'bitaN=i 'he dipped us into', but u:'bitaN=i 'he dipped them into'. This last is one of the verbs that doesn't take -wa- in 'them' forms, but only lengthens the initial. Note also aN:'gubitaN=i 'we dipped them into'. Here presumably *wa-aNg-o-pithaN=(p)i. Her discussion of the causative is quite abbreviated and doesn't include objects, so I don't know if she encountered P12 a-wa- with them. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 17 22:43:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:43:30 -0600 Subject: Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'. Message-ID: I think Dorsey wrote morphemically, or as close as he could come to it, in the texts and dictionary. It might be worth checking his hand written notes on that point though. Bob > > > 'tell us' u-a'wa gi-dha > > > > Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface? > > I don't know what moitivated Dorsey to record it in this fashion. I have > to assume he heard a difference between ua' and wa, but I don't have this > form from elicitation. He also records first person agents as ua'..., so > he is consistant. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Jan 17 23:44:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:44:13 -0600 Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) Message-ID: John wrote: > I found "ni a-dsi wa-kshi tha" 'permit us to cross this water', for which > I tentatively offer: > > niN aci wa-ks^idha > water ??? cause us > > This lacks the extra a- of a-wa- in the same way that it is missing in the > speech of the contemporary Osage speakers with whom Carolyn has worked. > The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event > it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. You mean it might be the "at/in location" postposition? I.e. it might transcribe into OP as: ni'adi wakhi'dha ? If so, that ought to translate as "cause us/them to (be) in water". In another note, John points out that the -awa- form for P12 seems to occur in conjunction with an incorporated prefix. Perhaps it is not causative per se that does it, but only the "tightness" of the preceding element, which in the case of a postpositional phrase is too loosely bound to force/preserve -awa-, even if the following verb is a causative. Rory Koontz John E cc: Sent by: Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/17/2004 12:02 AM Please respond to siouan On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in > the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts. I found "ni a-dsi wa-kshi tha" 'permit us to cross this water', for which I tentatively offer: niN aci wa-ks^idha water ??? cause us This lacks the extra a- of a-wa- in the same way that it is missing in the speech of the contemporary Osage speakers with whom Carolyn has worked. I'm not sure the osrit* files in the Siouan Archives are the whole set of LaFlesche Osage ritual texts, but this is almost the only example of 'us' in them. The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. Osage has ks^ for kh before i. I'm fairly certain of the causative, in spite of LaFlesche's word boundary between ks^i and dha. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Jan 18 12:57:14 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:57:14 +0100 Subject: Syntax Message-ID: I'm already pondering on Dakota syntax for some time and would like to hear your expert comments on this (as you know, I'm not a linguist of profession). 1) Is the Dakota topic-comment pattern comparable to some extent to, say, the one in Arabic (Allah - hu akbar)? 2) Do you think that it is also underlying the way to form compound nouns (or verbs), e.g. sunkawakan etc.? 3) Has this pattern also influenced the adverb-verb or verb-modal verb relationship? (e.g. nizi oniwanyake -> as for: you are pale - you seem so etc.) 4) Forming compounds, many examples seem to follow this pattern (with head on the left side, e.g. Hoksila Wanbli - 'Eagle Boy'), what pattern follow other examples with head to the right side, e.g. Sunka Wicasa - 'Dog Man'? Is this Western, i.e. English influence? 5) Is left- or right-branching nomenclature applicable to languages like Dakota? Thanks in advance Alfred A.W. T?ting _________ http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de 'Tieh Meng Hen - Traces of Butterflies' Dreams' Small Anthology of Sung Dynasty Poetry (Germ.-Chin.) _________ My Favourite Poetry Poems in German, English, Rumanian, Hungarian, Chinese, Spanish, French, Italian, Yiddish, Lojban, Sindarin etc. (with translations) ________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 19 08:22:30 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:22:30 -0700 Subject: Causative with P12 in Osage (RE: WA- once more.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > The 'aci' form might be a locative, with =cu (~ =ci?) 'in'. In any event > > it seems that the gloss LaFlesche offers is far from literal here. > > You mean it might be the "at/in location" postposition? > I.e. it might transcribe into OP as: > > ni'adi wakhi'dha ? > > If so, that ought to translate as "cause us/them to (be) in water". Exactly what I thought. Or perhaps 'cause us to be at (or arrive at) the water'. The other idea I had was that he might have misheard something like niN achi=wakhidha 'Cause to arrive here at the water.' > In another note, John points out that the -awa- form for P12 > seems to occur in conjunction with an incorporated prefix. Again, this is what I meant, though I might phrase it that the context for awa is when there is an incorporation, or, phonologically, when the inflected component is enclitic to to its grammatical complement. The main examples of a-wa- outside causatives so far are the "pseudo" Osage or, better, the "crypto" Omaha-Ponca forms in the LaFlesche Dictionary. From Dorsey's OP texts 90:61.15 s^e(')n(a)=a'wadhe 'destroying us' Here I think the accent marking essentially reveals length and thus the two-vowel sequence, cf. 90:256.12 s^e'na=wa'dhe 'destroying them', where no a- would be expected. I have changed the symbols and added =, but the accent, if not parenthesized, is the original. 90:197.6 e=a'wagaN=hnaN=i 'we are always so' 90:502.2 e=a'wagaN=i 'we are so' 90:438.14 e=a'wakkigaN=i 'they are like us' (reciprocal of preceding) 90:502.13 e=a'wawaN=i 'he caused it for us' 90:679.19 aNgu'=s^ti a'wagaN=i 'we, too, we are so' 90:420.2 z^u=a'wagdhe 'he with us' 90:442.20 sni=a'watta=i 'we are cold' This isn't exhaustive, and I;ve ignored duplicates. > Perhaps it is not causative per se that does it, but only the > "tightness" of the preceding element, which in the case of a > postpositional phrase is too loosely bound to force/preserve -awa-, even > if the following verb is a causative. The difficulty here is that we have only LaFlesche's dictionary to suggest that the awa variant ever occurred. We know that he's not always entirely accurate in representing inflections, and Caroline doesn't find awa in contemporary speech. It is possible that this is a recent development, but it is also possible that it is old, and that LaFlesche's a-wa- forms tell us more about Omaha-Ponca than Osage. I wish we had better exemplification of late 19th Century usage, but we have what we have. I tend to think that rather than suppose a complex conditioning for non-occurrence of a-wa- it is easier to assume that LaFlesche's dictionary should be overruled by modern Osage patterns, especially if his texts support modern usage in any way. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 07:32:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:32:53 -0700 Subject: Siouan word lists reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > axe maN'zephe > metal-sharp(?) > "sharp metal"? > (I'm not sure if the p is aspirated or not, > and would appreciate advice on this and on > my tentative "sharp" translation.) I believe it's ppe and what I heard was maN(aN)'spe or maybe maN(aN)'zEppe, with voiceless E. 'Sharp metal' is the usual explanation, though I'm not wholely satisfied with it. > axe handle maN'zephe-i'ba > axe-projection(?) While i'ba is also 'to swell; swelling', I think 'handle' would work here. This may be cognate with Dakotan ihu'pa. > base of an axe head maN'zephe-ppa-hi'de > axe-head-bottom > (I didn't notice it in the dictionary, but > this word implies that the word for axe-head > is maN'zephe-ppa.) That seems reasonable. > "adze" z^aN-i'-ga-goN > wood-INST-IMPULSE-trim(?) > "wood-trimmer" > > adze proper we'?e-z^aNi'gagoN > hoe-adze > > broad-ax maN'zephe-z^aNi'gagoN > axe-adze > > (The last three seem to imply a sharp-edged head > at the end of a handle, which is swung to rough-trim > lumbar. If the plane of the blade is parallel with > the plane of the swinging handle, as with an axe, > then it is an "axe wood-trimmer", or broad-ax. If > the plane of the blade is perpendicular to the plane > of the swinging handle, as with a hoe, then it is a > "hoe wood-trimmer". In English, we distinguish axes > from adzes in this manner, but have no general term > for a "wood-trimmer".) I wonder if the basic concept here might not be scraping or chipping or shaving. Probably not shaving, given the next, with a different root. > shavings z^aN-ba'-s?u [Omaha] > wood-PUSH-plane(?) > "wood shavings"? > > saw z^aN'-i-ba'-se > wood-INST-PUSH-cut > "something to cut wood by pushing" I got we'base, but the idea and the formation are the same. > saw, cross-cut saw we'magi'xe (wa-i-ma-gixe) [Omaha] > WA-INST-CUT-hiss(?) > > cross-cut saw z^aN'ttaNga-i'-ma'-se > log-INST-CUT-cut Might this be the two-handled kind? > hand-saw z^aN'-i-ma-se > wood-INST-CUT-cut > > hand-saw we'bamoN (wa-i-ba-moN) [Ponka] > WA-INST-PUSH-work(?) > (In Omaha, this word means "file") > > > circular saw u-noN'-sne > at a sawmill in-FOOT-split Were these conrolled with a treddle? Or maybe with a peddle mechamism like circular whet stones. > sawmill z^aN'-u-noN'-sne-ti > wood-in-FOOT-split-house > > (From the last two, it looks like unoN'sne is probably > a shortened form of z^aN'u-noN'-sne.) This seems reasonable. You wonder how readily z^aN could be ommitted everywhere? > sawdust z^aN-noN'-tube > wood-FOOT-powder > > (Apparently the instrumental prefix noN-, FOOT, governs > the action of a circular saw in a sawmill, and perhaps > other mechanical actions occurring low to the ground.) Or operated with a peddle? bittube is 'to rub to powder' (bi- PRESS) > log chain z^aN'-i-dhi-snu > wood-INST-HAND-slide > "wood snaker" Or 'drag(ger)'? > iron wedge maN'zewi'uga'sne (maN'ze-wa-i-u-ga-sne) > (iron-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-split) Sne seems to imply a lengthwise cut. > rasp z^aN-i'-ba-moN > wood-INST-PUSH-work > > moN-i'-dhi-xdha'de > ??-INST-HAND-?? > (Does anyone have any idea what moN and xdha'de might > mean here?) MoN occurs in the 'file' usage above, and I think it must refer to rubbing or rasping. The technique on these it to check under various combinations of instrumental and root in sources you have (Swetland & Stabler, LaFlesche, Dorsey, etc.), not scrupling to check other languages, too. It's tedious. Oh, I see, the second moN! Well, one idea is that m is the key below j, and j is how Dorsey wrote z^. Dorsey has gaxdha'de 'be buried in snow' in the texts, and we'axdhade (wa-i-a-...) is 'warclub with iron point', I suppose the kind resembling musket stocks? Maybe a reference to the rattail? > hammer z^aNwe'thiN (z^aN-wa-i'-thiN) [Ponka] > wood-WA-INST-hit > "wood striker" > > iron hammer iN'?ewe'thiN (iN'?e-wa-i-thiN) > stone-WA-INST-hit > "stone striker" Could the first be 'mallet' or 'maul'? The texts give just we'thiN, too. Also just iNwe'thiN for 'stonehammer'. > nails maN'zewi'ugadoN (man'ze-wa-i'-u-ga-doN) > metal-WA-INST-in-IMPULSE-force > "metal things used to be pounded in" Or maybe 'metal with which one in-pounds things'? > screws maN'ze-u-dhi'-gdheze > metal-in-HAND-striped > > u-dhi'-gdheze > in-HAND-striped > > screw-driver wi'udhi'doN (wa-i-u-dhi-doN) > WA-INST-in-HAND-force > "thing used for drawing in" Note that wiu is what happens when you put wa on udhu (like Da iyo). From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 07:41:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:41:49 -0700 Subject: Algonquian Flavor Terms Message-ID: For those who are interested in the typology of taste terms and dealing with the common uses of ProtoSiouan *sku're 'sweet, salty, sour'. I cited some of these in the 'oak' discussion. Anyway, Algonquian has some of the same conflations. > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: Here's about all I can piece together at this point, John. There's a reconstructed PA initial /$i:w-/ (Siebert) 'strong taste' that gives Cree /si:w-/ 'salty, sour' Menominee /se:w-/ 'sweet, sour' Ojibwe /$i:w-/ 'sour, salty' There may be other reflexes of this initial in other daughter languages, but I don't have any more resources for it. It apparently doesn't exist in Miami- Illinois. Or at least I haven't seen it. Then there's another PA initial */wi:$kopi-/ 'sweet', that gives, for example Fox /wi:$kopimina/ 'sweet corn' (lit. 'sweet berry') Interesting things happen to this initial when it moves into Miami-Illinois: Old Illinois /wi:skapeemihkwaani/ 'melon' (lit. 'sweet gourd, sweet pumpkin') (/eemihkwaani/ 'gourd, pumpkin') Old Illinois /wi:skape(e)kamiiwi/ 'eau salee' (salt water) [/-(i)kami-/ 'water'] Modern Miami-Illinois (with the same initial) /weehkapanki/ 'it is sweet/sour' /wiihkapaakani/ 'salt /weehkapahaminki/ 'it is salted' Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 08:16:30 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:16:30 -0700 Subject: 'Myth' Message-ID: Here's an interesting set: 'myth, traditional story'. There's usually another term for other kinds of stories, based on PS *o-ra'ke 'tell'. Te ohuN'kakaN 'fairy story, myth, legend' Sa hit[?]uN...kakaNpi 'traditional story; tell traditional story' (Presumably hithuN'ka 'mouse' is not connected?) OP hi=...gaN 'story; tell story' Os "hi'go" 'story' Presumably hi'koN with denasalization. Ks hi'yoge, hyoge (hi + last part of oya'ge 'tell', cf. *o-rake) 'myth' Qu ??? IO we'...kaN, wagi'kaN 'traditional story; tell traditional story' Wi waikaN' 'traditional story; tell traditional story' The intersting thing here is the set isn't regular. There are some variaitons in shape, to be sure, but the interesting thing is that the initial element hi (=> i in IO and WI, maybe after wa-?) is fairly constant, and the final element -kaN, but IO and Wi -kaN here does not match Da and Dh *kaN. Wi -kaN and IO -kaN are from *-hkaN. Only -gaN would match exactly. However, it is possible that the Wi and IO forms use a dative in *(ki)-k- or something like that, and that the preaspiration reflects the dative marking. IO's form inflects werekaN 'you tell story' which is certainly the dative paradigm. The details of Winnebago inflection of this form are not known to me. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 08:40:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:40:15 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: In conneciton with the preceding on 'story' and some other activities I noticed two non-wa nominalizations in OP. i'...e 'speak; speech, unit of speech, e.g., word' hi'...gaN 'tell traditional story; traditional story' I don't believe you can prefix wa to these forms, which are active intransitives and taken no patient. On the other hand, though Omaha-Ponca seems to lack a nominalization of udha' 'tell', this verb does take a patient, the thing told, and that can be replaced with wa. Forms for 'story' based on it have this wa, e.g., IO worage or Os (LaF) u'dhake. Note that IO and Wi do have wa-derivatives of 'story', but these seem to be dative, and perhaps the wa there refers to the indefinite recipient of the story. I also noticed Os wi'...kie 'orison, prayer, to pray', which is the wa-form for a dative i'...kie from i'...e. The OP verb i'...gie is glossed once 'to talk against him', but I think the form is generally 'to talk to or with respect to someone', so Os wi'kie may be historically 'to speak to or with respect to someone unspecified', with wa filling the dative slot. I present this perhaps somewhat tortuous argument in support of wa- as an indefinite patient present in nominalizations only when inherited from the verb in that capacity, and not as a general marker of nominalization or as an obligatory head marker in nominalizations. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Jan 20 19:31:14 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:31:14 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: John wrote: > In conneciton with the preceding on 'story' and some other activities I > noticed two non-wa nominalizations in OP. > i'...e 'speak; speech, unit of speech, e.g., word' > hi'...gaN 'tell traditional story; traditional story' Is there any particular reason we don't have an epenthetic dh in i'e (not i'dhe) ? Is this word completely "normal"? > I don't believe you can prefix wa to these forms, which are active > intransitives and taken no patient. On the other hand, though Omaha-Ponca > seems to lack a nominalization of udha' 'tell', this verb does take a > patient, the thing told, and that can be replaced with wa. Forms for > 'story' based on it have this wa, e.g., IO worage or Os (LaF) u'dhake. What about the thing spoken? Wouldn't a language fill this slot? For a while, I was trying to build classroom sentences on lines of: X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) The speakers recently corrected me. I should have been phrasing that: X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! This would seem to mean that the verb ie can take a patient. I wonder if ie isn't primarily a verb. Like any other verb or verb phrase, it can be turned into a noun describing the action, in the way we might say "the speaking". The term we-e, however, if it existed, would mean "the thing used for speaking", if we suppose that wa is a head-marker, or "(something) used for saying things", if we suppose that wa is a patient marker. As implement terms, these words may just never have been coined. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 20 19:47:17 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:47:17 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: > Is there any particular reason we don't have an epenthetic dh in i'e (not i'dhe) ? Is this word completely "normal"? Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't occur WITHIN roots. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 20:32:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:32:53 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > i'...e 'speak; speech, unit of speech, e.g., word' > > hi'...gaN 'tell traditional story; traditional story' > > Is there any particular reason we don't have an epenthetic dh in i'e > (not i'dhe) ? Is this word completely "normal"? I've wondered about that myself and I have no explanation except that there is a word idhe 'to speak of, to promise'. Dakota has iye, where y, like dh is from *r - but maybe not in this word? - and some folks like to write iye in OP, but I figure this is awkward because (a) the y is quite automatic and (b) y only occurs in this sort of epenthetic environment. As a verb ie is quite regular and it's a good MVS set at least. > > I don't believe you can prefix wa to these forms, which are active > > intransitives and taken no patient. > What about the thing spoken? Wouldn't a language fill this > slot? Well, the language might be oblique, as it is, I think, in Russian. For example, I wonder if the i-prefix doesn't govern the language. I actually don't know how to say 'to speak Omaha' off the top of my head, oddly enough. I do think there is a place in the texts where they might say 'to speak Mandan'. I'll check when I can. > For a while, I was trying to build classroom sentences on > lines of: > > X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) > > The speakers recently corrected me. I should have been > phrasing that: > > X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! Yeah, but that's just an ablaut issue: i'...E, with E > a /__ IMPERATIVE. They apparently liked your complementation. > This would seem to mean that the verb ie can take a patient. At least the language is clearly some sort of argument. We can't test with the usual non-third or animate plural object tests. What does wi'e or maybe wee mean? Things said and quoted often behave rather atypically for objects. For example, I think the 'to say' verbs always incorporate a demonstrative - sometimes fairly obscure in the morphology - because this is co-referential with the thing quoted. 'To think' verbs are similar. If it's not a demonstrative with verbs of saying or talking, it's i or u, as in i'e or udha'. > I wonder if ie isn't primarily a verb. Like any other verb or verb > phrase, it can be turned into a noun describing the action, in the way > we might say "the speaking". The term we-e, however, if it existed, > would mean "the thing used for speaking", if we suppose that wa is a > head-marker, or "(something) used for saying things", if we suppose that > wa is a patient marker. As implement terms, these words may just never > have been coined. The i-locative - or forms homophonous with it - aren't always instrumental. I don't see how examples like ibahaN could be, anyway. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Jan 20 21:26:14 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:26:14 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233986@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't > occur WITHIN roots. But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic. It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc. And you have datives like i'gie. Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume it's a locative. If the root is the root of (e=)e 'to say' (A1 ehe, A2 es^e, A3 a=i), then that is historically something like *he, and that h might explain why i'e is i'e and not i'dhe. However, the root is not inflected (within recorded OP) as A1 *i(p)he, A2 *is^e, A3 *i'(h)e. On the other hand, the first and second persons are what Winnebago and Chiwere have for first persons of ee' 'to say'. (Winnebago has hi-, of course, not i-.) How did that work in Quapaw? JEK From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 20 23:00:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:00:44 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: Quapaw has confused the two roots, e:he and ie (which as in Omaha is sometimes written iye, but with the same result since /y/ isn't otherwise a phoneme in QU). I think that, although historically these may have been bimorphemic, synchronically they're roots nowadays. This is probably true of a lot of i- prefixed verbs. I- seems to have a greater amount of abstraction associated with it than the other "locatives". It is opaque with lots of verbs throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. Ie is just infixing like mani 'walk'. Otherwise I can't explain the failure to insert [d, dh, y] etc. in the Dhegiha dialects. Maybe there was a glottal stop once upon a time. . . Bob > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't > > occur WITHIN roots. > > But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic. > It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc. And you have datives like > i'gie. Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume > it's a locative. If the root is the root of (e=)e 'to say' (A1 ehe, A2 > es^e, A3 a=i), then that is historically something like *he, and that h > might explain why i'e is i'e and not i'dhe. However, the root is not > inflected (within recorded OP) as A1 *i(p)he, A2 *is^e, A3 *i'(h)e. On > the other hand, the first and second persons are what Winnebago and > Chiwere have for first persons of ee' 'to say'. (Winnebago has hi-, of > course, not i-.) How did that work in Quapaw? > > JEK > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 00:27:47 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:27:47 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: John wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: >> Good question. I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't >> occur WITHIN roots. > > But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic. > It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc. And you have datives like > i'gie. Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume > it's a locative. I would agree that ie is bimorphemic, at least originally, but I don't see why we would suppose the i- is i-locative rather than i-instrumental. The i'dhe word, meaning to say something about or with respect to something/one, seems like the i-locative form. But ie, at least as a verb, appears transparently instrumental: X e' X say say X UmoN'hon i-e' Omaha INST-say say it by using Omaha = speak Omaha Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 00:52:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:52:13 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I would agree that ie is bimorphemic, at least originally, > but I don't see why we would suppose the i- is i-locative > rather than i-instrumental. This is a terminological confusion. Although the i-locative is normally instrument-governing (especially in Dhegiha), I think I'm correct that traditional usage is to refer to all i, like a and o (or u), as locatives. Only the instrument-encoding prefixes are referred to as instrumentals (ga, naN, dha, dhi, ba, bi, ma, mu, na in Omaha-Ponca). I've never run into a Dhegihanist who was perfectly happy with this. In effect, the terms locative and instrumental name morphosyntactic classes, some members of which have shades of meaning not entirely consistent with the semantics of the traditional class name. Thus, locative i governs instruments, while instrumental na 'by heat' indicates a cause, not an instrument, and so on. The terms derive from the Riggs, Dorsey, Boas, Taylor & Rood (and Rankin) scholarly sequence. I've experimented personally with referring to things that act like "locatives" (including maN in OP) as "movable preverbs" while things that behave like ma= or mu= would be "fixed preverbs," but in the end its probably simpler to stick by the less satisfactory, but well-known terms. Occasional refinements like "inner" vs. "outer" instrumentals may be useful, and we can certainly reject Lipkind's "modal" (in the sense of transitivity category) for wa-, but on the whole its probably better to live with the existing terms. Incidentally, I think Boas invented locative. Dorsey came up with "second dative." I don't know who first called instrumentals instrumentals (in Siouan). I think Taylor & Rood came up with ablaut and vertitive, though I'm not positive, and maybe agent and patient. Maybe active and stative, too. I'm referring only to "first use in a Siouan context." From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 02:14:25 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:14:25 -0600 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations Message-ID: >> For a while, I was trying to build classroom sentences on >> lines of: >> >> X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) >> >> The speakers recently corrected me. I should have been >> phrasing that: >> >> X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! > > Yeah, but that's just an ablaut issue: i'...E, with E > a /__ IMPERATIVE. > They apparently liked your complementation. I don't follow. Ablaut generally affects only the end verb of the chain before the imperative particle. In this case, both examples are ablauted before ga. In the first sentence, I was understanding ie as a noun equivalent to English 'speech' or 'language. I was seeing it as the head of a noun phrase "UmoN'hoN ie", "Omaha speech" or "Omaha language". Then I was employing that NP as an adverbial noun to modifiy the verb e', 'to say', which ablauted to a' before ga. So I figured: X [UmoN'hoN ie] a' ga! X [(in) Omaha language] say IMP Say X in the Omaha language! The speakers apparently preferred treating ie as an instrumental verb in which the central meaning was still 'say'. X UmoN'hoN i-a' ga! X Omaha INST-say IMP Say X by means of Omaha! The aim in either case, of course, is to say "Say X in Omaha!" in Omaha! Rory From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed Jan 21 04:50:10 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:50:10 -0500 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > > This is a terminological confusion. Although the i-locative is normally > instrument-governing (especially in Dhegiha), I think I'm correct that > traditional usage is to refer to all i, like a and o (or u), as locatives. > Only the instrument-encoding prefixes are referred to as instrumentals > (ga, naN, dha, dhi, ba, bi, ma, mu, na in Omaha-Ponca). I've never run > into a Dhegihanist who was perfectly happy with this. > I agree that the terminology is confusing, and the semantics of the individual prefixes make it more confusing. I see the difference between locatives and instrumentals as distributional - the locatives can co-occur with each other, but the instrumentals are limited to one per stem, and the locatives can occur with the instrumentals. Linda From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 07:14:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:14:13 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > >> *X UmoN'hoN ie a' ga! ("Say X in Omaha!) > >> > >> The speakers recently corrected me. > >> X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! > > In the first sentence, I was understanding ie as a noun > equivalent to English 'speech' or 'language. I was > seeing it as the head of a noun phrase "UmoN'hoN ie", > "Omaha speech" or "Omaha language". My misunderstanding. I took it as a verb in both cases. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 07:40:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:40:10 -0700 Subject: Non-wa Nominalizations In-Reply-To: <1074660610.400e050263b3f@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > I agree that the terminology is confusing, and the semantics of the individual > prefixes make it more confusing. I see the difference between locatives and > instrumentals as distributional - the locatives can co-occur with each other, > but the instrumentals are limited to one per stem, and the locatives can occur > with the instrumentals. My morphosyntactic definition of locative is something like INCLUSIVE > LOCATIVE > {first and second person forms} This really works out to be just the three "one vowel" prefixes in most cases, though, in OP, the inclusive also precedes maN in maN...dhiN 'to walk' and maN...naN 'to steal', so, in principle, these two cases of maN (probably not the same maN, etymologically) could be considered locatives (or at least movable preverbs). The idea with movable preverb is that a preverb is something that precedes the pronominals, while a movable preverb sometimes "moves" to after a pronoun, specifically the inclusives. But the logic of both movable and preverb as terms have failings, and on the whole I don't think the movable vs. fixed thing works well. Instrumentals are a bit slipperier as a morphosyntactic class. For one thing, they are really two classses - inner ones (that follow pronominals) and outer ones (that precede them). The inner instrumentals are basically anything that comes between the root and the dative/suus/reflexive sort of prefix. But in practice there many other things that precede pronominals, and, on the whole, it is best to consider instrumentals as preverbs (outer instrumentals) or prefixes (inner instrumentals) that indicate instruments or causes or manners of actions. In the same vein one can think of locatives as things that add an additional object (or an instrument), though I am pretty sure that all of them actually do either this or pre-empt the principle object status, but with a directional (or instrumental) sense. In short, these are categories that any Siouanist can recognize as valid in a Siouan language, but which are hardly going to appeal to theoreticians as linguistic primes of some sort. I think every language family has such things. The Algonquian morphological terminology is certainly rather strange, but works fairly well for Algonquian languages. One might be able to do better, but so much has been written using the Bloomfieldian terminology that there is little point in making the painful shift to "better" terminology. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 08:00:28 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:00:28 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: I looked, but couldn't find any examples of 'speak (a language)' in the texts. In fact, I could find any examples of i'e with a complement. The sense of 'speak' with a complement seems to use ukkie or some derivative thereof, e.g., aNg-u-dhi-kkie 'we speak to you'. Unfortunately the texts only go so far as a source of examples. I did notice that 'we speak of', from i=...dhe 'speak of' is i=aNdha=i, showing the i there is a preverb, not the instrumental locative. On the other hand, 'we speak' from i'...e is aNdhaNa=i, in which aNdhaN is the typical inclusive + i-locative result. (Actually, for various morphophonemic reasons, it appears that the inclusive aN follows the locative i, subversive as that may seem from a Dakotanist point of view.) Anyay, subversion aside, it does appear that i'e begins with the instrumental locative. I've thought of another consideration relative to i'e appearing as i'e and no *i'dhe. I think this may have been Bob's point earlier, actually. As it happens epenthetic dh in "preverbal strings" occurs only between the elements of the preverbal string, e.g., between locatives and between locatives and pronominals. There are no cases of it occurring between the string and the verb initial that are coming back to me at the moment. Of course, you do find epenthetic dh in the causative's dh, and the paradigm of 'father' is Ps1 iNdadi, Ps2 dhiadi, Ps3 idhadi, Voc dadi=ha(u), in which Ps3 built on adi shows epenthetic dh in i-dh-adi. For some reason Ps2 built on -adi does not. Ps1 and the vocative are from another stem, -dadi. (Siouan has both the ata and tata versions of the generic human 'father' word.) From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 18:45:45 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:45:45 -0600 Subject: Siouan word lists reply Message-ID: >> rasp z^aN-i'-ba-moN >> wood-INST-PUSH-work >> >> moN-i'-dhi-xdha'de >> ??-INST-HAND-?? >> (Does anyone have any idea what moN and xdha'de might >> mean here?) > > MoN occurs in the 'file' usage above, ... > > Oh, I see, the second moN! Well, one idea is that m is the key below j, > and j is how Dorsey wrote z^. Brilliant display of lateral thinking, John!! That's probably it. ... I dunno, I guess I just assumed that Dorsey never made typos. :) > Dorsey has gaxdha'de 'be buried in snow' in the texts, and we'axdhade > (wa-i-a-...) is 'warclub with iron point', I suppose the kind resembling > musket stocks? Maybe a reference to the rattail? I've run into another case of -xdha'de. For 'hairpin', he has two forms: noNz^i'ha-we'baxdha'de and wea'baxdha'de He notes that they are not yet used by the Omaha, and that Wdj. objects to the present use of the terms, so this was probably productive at the time. Maybe -xdhade could mean 'stick (v.)', or sticky? That's about as close as I can come to a concept that could unify all these cases. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 21 19:43:45 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:45 -0600 Subject: ie 'speak' again. Message-ID: It occured to me to wonder whether there are any verbs in these languages that begin with the vowel /i/ that do NOT inflect with the pronominals "infixed"? We cannot automatically assume that every verb that begins with /i/ has a 'locative, directional' or 'instrument' prefix. Some roots must simply begin with /i/. But if every verb that begins with /i/ inflects like an instrumental, i.e., infixed, then it appears that there has been analogical leveling, so that both instrumental/locative verbs AND verbs simply starting with /i/ are treated alike. And if this is so, then {ie} 'speak' may or may not be, or have ever been, bimorphemic. In other words, infixed conjugation wouldn't enable any of us to determine the morphemic status of i-. Only determining the meaning or function of i- in this particular verb would permit us (or native speakers) to do that. And I, for one, see no identifiable meaning or function for the /i/ of {ie} 'speak'. One can do virtually anything with enough semantic latitude, of course, but there's nothing there that is at all obvious to me. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 19:46:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:46:04 -0700 Subject: Siouan word lists reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Brilliant display of lateral thinking, John!! That's probably it. > ... I dunno, I guess I just assumed that Dorsey never made typos. :) I wonder if the BAE's typewriters had the modern keyboard? There actually are a few in the texts, though I forget where. Things like gc (gs^) for g- (gdh). I guess we have to consider that this might really be some unknown moN, though. > > Dorsey has gaxdha'de 'be buried in snow' in the texts, and we'axdhade > > (wa-i-a-...) is 'warclub with iron point', I suppose the kind resembling > > musket stocks? Maybe a reference to the rattail? > > I've run into another case of -xdha'de. For 'hairpin', he > has two forms: > > noNz^i'ha-we'baxdha'de and wea'baxdha'de ... > Maybe -xdhade could mean 'stick (v.)', or sticky? > That's about as close as I can come to a concept that > could unify all these cases. I wonder if the sense of -xdhade might be 'plunge into' or 'protrude from'? The ga- instrumental is used with actions by wind or current, and perhaps falling or deep snow might be in the same category. There are cases of instrumental roots that cover a range of somewhat connected meanings, too. (No specific examples in mind.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 20:11:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:11:09 -0700 Subject: ie 'speak' again. In-Reply-To: <003001c3e056$f53498a0$2db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > It occured to me to wonder whether there are any verbs in these languages that > begin with the vowel /i/ that do NOT inflect with the pronominals "infixed"? Well, idhe 'to speak of' differs in its treatment of inclusive aN, as I mentioned, but I don't know of any verbs that start with vowels that don't get handled as locatives or preverbs. One group of additions are roots that are or maybe just V, e.g., perhaps e in i'e, which might be *i...he, or, as you argue, *...ie. And then in OP the root of ai' 'to come' is just i (cf. vertitive gi, not *khi, and Dakota (hi)bu with the same stem. The verb 'to day' seems to be just e(e)' in the third person, but this is suspect of being contracted from *e...he. However, in the present context we need polysyllabic verbs with initial i. > We cannot automatically assume that every verb that begins with /i/ has > a 'locative, directional' or 'instrument' prefix. Some roots must > simply begin with /i/. But if every verb that begins with /i/ inflects > like an instrumental, i.e., infixed, then it appears that there has been > analogical leveling, so that both instrumental/locative verbs AND verbs > simply starting with /i/ are treated alike. And if this is so, then > {ie} 'speak' may or may not be, or have ever been, bimorphemic. In > other words, infixed conjugation wouldn't enable any of us to determine > the morphemic status of i-. Only determining the meaning or function of > i- in this particular verb would permit us (or native speakers) to do > that. And I, for one, see no identifiable meaning or function for the > /i/ of {ie} 'speak'. One can do virtually anything with enough semantic > latitude, of course, but there's nothing there that is at all obvious to > me. The verb does also seem to have infixed derivation, as in the case of i'gie 'speak against someone', and the i is accented, but apart from that, and a suggestion that somebody who can should try various sorts of complements with it (in various languages), I don't know how to counter an argument like this. It's certainly not unreasonable to consider the possibility that i'...e is reformulated from *...ie. Verbs of speaking and saying and telling are one of the many rather under investigated areas in Siouan. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 21 20:52:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:52:41 -0600 Subject: ie 'speak' again. Message-ID: > . . . but I don't know of any verbs that start with vowels that don't > get handled as locatives or preverbs. Right. Nor do I. But I don't think we can say that this means that every such verb actually has/had a locative (or instrumental) prefix. It's just that there's been massive analogical leveling and concomitant extension of the infixing patterns. This eliminates infixation as evidence for the presence of locatives/instrumentals, and we'll have to rely on other criteria. > The verb 'to say' seems to be just > e(e)' in the third person, but this is suspect of being contracted from > *e...he. Right. It is underlying e:he since it is conjugated e:phe, e:$e, etc. (where Omaha/Ponca eliminates the p). > The verb does also seem to have infixed derivation, as in the case of > i'gie 'speak against someone', and the i is accented, but apart from that, > and a suggestion that somebody who can should try various sorts of > complements with it (in various languages), I don't know how to counter an > argument like this. It's certainly not unreasonable to consider the > possibility that i'...e is reformulated from *...ie. Yes, that's the whole point. I remember John's remarking on the lack of V-initial conjugations in Siouan back when we were working on the comparative dict. project. This explains why, at least for the three most common vowels, i, a, o. They all require infixes (as if, but not because, they were locative). Intial nasal vowels tend to get an epenthetic *r or *w, depending on the initial vowel. As we know this leaves doublets like Dakotan yuNka and waNka 'be lying' Verbs like 'ask' and 'be sitting' fall into this class. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 21 23:27:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:27:09 -0700 Subject: ie 'speak' again. In-Reply-To: <001001c3e060$954a1b90$2db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > . . . but I don't know of any verbs that start with vowels that don't > > get handled as locatives or preverbs. > > Right. Nor do I. But I don't think we can say that this means that every such > verb actually has/had a locative (or instrumental) prefix. It's just that > there's been massive analogical leveling and concomitant extension of the > infixing patterns. This eliminates infixation as evidence for the presence of > locatives/instrumentals, and we'll have to rely on other criteria. Well, unless we have large groups of verbs in which the "locatives" seem functionless and the apparent underlying stem can't be plausibly etymologized, my inclination would be to leave it a mental note to be alert for such cases and go on treating locative-like vowels as locatives as the working hypothesis. Actually, i'e 'to speak' and uhaN' 'to cook, to boil' are the two main examples that some immediately to mind. I tend to think that the final -e of i'e is the final -(h)e of 'to say', though this is only in the nature, again, of a working hypothesis. Other possible examples: - *rut(e) ~ *(r)ut(e) ~ t(e) 'to eat' Another monosyllable: - *(?)o 'to shoot, to wound' The glottal stop stems all behave more like vowel-initial stems in most contexts than glottal-stop initials. It's hard to know if they are V-initial sems with occasional analogically extended epenthetic ? or ?-initial stems with frequent loss of ?. > > The verb 'to say' seems to be just e(e)' in the third person, but > > this is suspect of being contracted from *e...he. > Right. It is underlying e:he since it is conjugated e:phe, e:$e, etc. > (where Omaha/Ponca eliminates the p). I've noticed that the quotative verbs *???...he 'to say' and *???...ye 'to think' have initial *e (or other demonstratives) right across Siouan, but in IO they have i and in Winnebago hi, presumably from *i. With 'say' they have just ee in the third person. (I remember hihe and his^e in Winnebago for first and second persons.) Quapaw seems to have done something similar with 'say'. I think that this suggests that *i'...(h)e 'to speak' and *e'...(h)e 'to say' are probably etymologically parallel as well as semantically similar, and that *i is a distinct morpheme, though it isn't clear that it is the instrumental locative. It could also be the *i that appears in third person marking, especially possessives. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Jan 21 23:36:49 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:36:49 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: John wrote: > I looked, but couldn't find any examples of 'speak (a language)' in the > texts. In fact, I could find any examples of i'e with a complement. The > sense of 'speak' with a complement seems to use ukkie or some derivative > thereof, e.g., aNg-u-dhi-kkie 'we speak to you'. Unfortunately the texts > only go so far as a source of examples. Well, how about sentences using ie without a complement then? Certainly i'e thE as a noun meaning 'speech' or 'word' ought to be common enough, but I'm having trouble thinking of how you would use ie as a verb except with implied or actual language or speech complement. Perhaps {ia' ga!}-- Speak! Orate! ? In class, I'm pretty sure we have been using UmoN'hoN ie from the beginning for 'Omaha language', and I don't recall the speakers ever objecting. (We have a vested interest here, as Mark will have to re-write his dissertation if we can't use ie with UmoN'hoN as a complement!) I would understand u-kki-e as 'in-RECIPROCAL-say', or 'say things to each other', 'converse', 'talk to someone'. This can also be translated as 'speak' in English, but the emphasis here is on saying things to somebody, or a dialogue. The word ie seems to be i-e, 'INST-say', 'to say by means of (some protocol)'. In this case, the emphasis is on the tools of speech, i.e. the words or the language. This conception in turn might extend to cover 'monologue' or 'oration', and hence 'speak' in that sense of the English word. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 22 02:31:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:31:56 -0600 Subject: ie 'speak' again. Message-ID: > Well, unless we have large groups of verbs in which the "locatives" seem > functionless and the apparent underlying stem can't be plausibly > etymologized, my inclination would be to leave it a mental note to be > alert for such cases and go on treating locative-like vowels as locatives > as the working hypothesis. The are lots of those, and i- is the biggest class. > Actually, i'e 'to speak' and uhaN' 'to cook, to boil' are the two main > examples that some immediately to mind. I tend to think that the final -e > of i'e is the final -(h)e of 'to say', though this is only in the nature, > again, of a working hypothesis. *e:he only reduces to e(:) in Dhegiha as far as I know. Maybe not even 100% there. Unless ie 'speak' retains the /h/ in one or another of the languages, I can't consider ie a reduction of i + he. And i- still doesn't make sense here even if the e < he. Boas and Deloria mention that there are lots of unanalyzable i- prefixes. I haven't looked at the o's and a's. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jan 22 08:34:17 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:34:17 +0100 Subject: ie <- i-yA Message-ID: Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g. going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the causative or the verb 'to go'. In my naive interpretation, this didn't seem too far-fetched and unplausible. Had I to invent a Dakota verb for 'speak' etc., I might do it this way ;-) But now, alas, I see that all this was nothing more than linguistic fancy and wishful thinking :( Alfred From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 14:16:07 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:16:07 -0700 Subject: ie <- i-yA In-Reply-To: <400F8B09.8030006@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had > 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g. > going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the > causative or the verb 'to go'. The Dakota verb iya' 'to speak' is inflected A1 iwa'ya, A2 iya'ya, A12 uNki'ya=pi. I think that if it where a causative it would A12 *i=uN'ya=pi, so this looks like it involves a locative i. In OP, and, I think, other Dhegiha, there are two verbs: i'e 'to speak (aloud)': A1 idha'a, A12 i'dhaa, A12 aNdhaN'a=i (?)i'=dhe 'to speak of, to say one will': A1 i'=adhe, A2 i'=dhadhe, A12 i'=aNdha=i The former matches the Dakota verb, allowing for changes in morphology like A1/A2/A12 a/dha/aN(g) instead of wa/ya/uN(k), i + a > idha' (vs. i + dha > i'dha), and i + aN > aNdhaN'. Plural marking =i vs. =pi. The latter form does look like mouth + CAUSE. Of course, as Bob argues, we have to allow for analogical recategorization. These analyses simply assess the forms at face value. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 14:23:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:23:45 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > In class, I'm pretty sure we have been using UmoN'hoN ie from the > beginning for 'Omaha language', and I don't recall the speakers ever > objecting. (We have a vested interest here, as Mark will have to > re-write his dissertation if we can't use ie with UmoN'hoN as a > complement!) Probably you're OK, but notice that the ladies you work with didn't correct you from UmaNhaN ie a ga to UmaNhaN ia ga until very recently. I think Omaha good manners might sometimes prevents correction of things. For what it's worth, I've also noticed that in English I hear people using complementation structures that I wouldn't use myself, and even though I'm a kind of captious, outspoken person I don't necessarily correct them. Ex. I hear "rob something from someone" where I'd say "steal something from someone" or "rob someone of something." I think off-kilter complementation structures just bother most people less than mangled morphology. For one thing, it's often harder for a non-linguistto explain what bothers them. And by now, of course, if there were a problem originally, things may have started sounding right that way, another standard elicitation problem. Enough repetitions and sometimes even the wrong stuff sounds OK. What I might do in a situation like this - and this is more instinct than vast experience - is to ask for unrelated sentences (to try to escape any "training" effect) like "I speak Pawnee." or "They were speaking Kiowa, so I didn't understand them." "In Dakota you say it about the same." and so on, and work up to "Please say ... in Dakota." Then, all you have to do is substitute Omaha for Dakota. Another thought, in a lot of places in America one talks a language rather than speaking it. I forget how it works in Nebraska. It wouldn't hurt to try a variety of sentences with talk, speak, say, tell, think, suspect, etc., and various argument structures. Slightly off topic, but I remember when working with Omaha speakers that if I said "How do you say 'I am hungry.'?" I'd usually get "You're hungry." but if I said "How would you translate 'I am hungry.'?" I'd get the first person. Another thing I noticed was that if I went through a paradigm I'd get 'I am hungry', 'you are hungry, too', 'he is hungry, too', and so on. In other words, the paradigm acted as a conversational context. I realized that a sequence of questions would build on one another whether I intended them to or not. > I would understand u-kki-e as 'in-RECIPROCAL-say', or 'say things to > each other', 'converse', 'talk to someone'. This can also be translated > as 'speak' in English, but the emphasis here is on saying things to > somebody, or a dialogue. The word ie seems to be i-e, 'INST-say', 'to > say by means of (some protocol)'. In this case, the emphasis is on the > tools of speech, i.e. the words or the language. This conception in > turn might extend to cover 'monologue' or 'oration', and hence 'speak' > in that sense of the English word. Verbs of speaking seem to me to a bit like verbs of motion. They don't translate individually, but as systems. You have to understand the parameters of the two systems before you can pick a term from one system to equate to the other in a given context. That's probably true of all vocabulary, but with some domains you can get further by ignoring the parameters and trying to match one word to one word (or two) and vice versa. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 15:03:33 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:03:33 -0700 Subject: Syntax of Speaking Message-ID: Rory asked about how 'speak' might be used without some sort of argument. The answer seems to be that mainly it means 'say something unspecified or understood out loud'. 90:102.4 i'a=ga speak IMP Go on! 90:148/14-15 kki s^iNgaz^iNga akki'wa i'e wakkaNdagi=hnaN=bi=ama and children both to speak they were forward only they say "And both children were quite precocious about learning to talk." 90:151.3 ihaN' e'dhaNba i'e naN?aN'=bi=ama, nu'=akha his mother too speaking he heard the man "The man heard his mother speaking, too." 90:195.20 i'dhae=hnaN=i you were speaking "You were saying something." To which the response is: 90:196.40 aNdhaNdha=b=az^i we did not speak "We didn't say a word." Those are a few of the numerous 'speak up', 'say something out loud' sorts of examples. In addition, I have found some examples that come close to complementation in spite of my earlier and premature claim that there were none. 90:196.15-16 i'dhae=hnaN=i. eda'daN ed=e's^=egaN i'a=i=ga you were speaking what you having said it say it "You said something. Tell me what you said." Here, an egaN clause acts as a sort of quasi-argument. 90:483.2-3 kki ni'kkas^iNga=(a)ma dhe'=ama umaN'haN=ama eda'daN i'e=khe=aN=s^te and the people these the Omahas what they speak soever s^aN' wabdhittaN maNbdhiN yet I work I walk "And these people, the Omahas, whatsoever they say I go on working for them." (or, "no matter what people say I go on working for the Omahas"?) This seems to show eda'daN i'e 'say something'. 90:684.1 i'e j^uba=xc^i idha'e wi'bdhahaN s^u=dhe'=dhadhe=tta=miNkhe words just a few I say I pray to you I will send to you "I will briefly petition you." Here we have a sort of cognate object (?) i'e i'e 'words to speak'. 90:748.10 ni'kkas^iNga ukke'dhiN bdhu'ga ua'wagikki i'a=i indians all to side with us he speaks "He tells all the Indians to side with us." This seems to involve CLAUSE i'e in a straightforward way, though as such it is quite unusual. Finally, I found this one example, or almost, of 'to speak Omaha', if not of 'to say X in Omaha'. 90:443.15 umaN'haN i'e=the thappi=b=az^i dhaN'z^a Omaha speech they did not speak well though, s^aN' ua'wagidha=i=the yet they told it to us John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 22 15:12:31 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:12:31 -0600 Subject: ie <- i-yA Message-ID: Well, the sound symbolism route is well-trodden! James Crawford published a paper back in the mid 70's on YA words for 'mouth, speak', etc. in a volume he edited on Southeastern Indian Languages. He found such terms all over the place in many languages. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred W. T?ting" To: Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:34 AM Subject: ie <- i-yA > Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had > 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g. > going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the > causative or the verb 'to go'. In my naive interpretation, this didn't > seem too far-fetched and unplausible. Had I to invent a Dakota verb for > 'speak' etc., I might do it this way ;-) But now, alas, I see that all > this was nothing more than linguistic fancy and wishful thinking :( > > Alfred > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 22 15:32:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:32:21 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > In class, I'm pretty sure we have been using UmoN'hoN ie from the > > beginning for 'Omaha language', and I don't recall the speakers ever > > objecting. (We have a vested interest here, as Mark will have to > > re-write his dissertation if we can't use ie with UmoN'hoN as a > > complement!) > > Probably you're OK, but notice that the ladies you work with didn't > correct you from UmaNhaN ie a ga to UmaNhaN ia ga until very recently. I > think Omaha good manners might sometimes prevents correction of things. FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the modifier preceded the noun). Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 22 16:09:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:09:10 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: <003b01c3e0fd$01d04540$16b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you > and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the > modifier preceded the noun). UmaN'haN i'e is Omaha language, too. The only question really is how to say 'say xxx in Omaha, and maybe 'to speak Omaha', albeit i'e being a verb as well as a noun offers a hint there. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 22 19:32:53 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:32:53 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: John wrote: > Probably you're OK, but notice that the ladies you work with didn't > correct you from UmaNhaN ie a ga to UmaNhaN ia ga until very recently. I > think Omaha good manners might sometimes prevents correction of things. I don't think such misguided good manners are too prevalent with us. If they think I'm clearly wrong about something, they generally shoot me down without mercy, and I encourage that. > For what it's worth, I've also noticed that in English I hear people using > complementation structures that I wouldn't use myself, and even though I'm > a kind of captious, outspoken person I don't necessarily correct them. > Ex. I hear "rob something from someone" where I'd say "steal something > from someone" or "rob someone of something." I think off-kilter > complementation structures just bother most people less than mangled > morphology. For one thing, it's often harder for a non-linguistto explain > what bothers them. I think this opens up the fact that grammatical rules are sometimes strict, and sometimes pretty fuzzy. Some native speakers themselves may not "get" all the rules. 'Rob' and 'steal' mean the same thing, except that the direct object of 'rob' is the person, and the direct object of 'steal' is the thing. But the expression "rob something from someone" is perfectly comprehensible and unambiguous, and it flies just fine for purposes of communication. Somewhere, someone failed to pick up on the difference between 'rob' and 'steal', and raised up a nest of kids in their own image; thus the language evolves. A usage like this may just not be felt worth correcting. One elicitation technique I've learned from Mark over the years is to ask: "Which sounds better, [formulation X], or [formulation Y]?" This method seems to work pretty well for culling gray-area cases like this. It makes it easy for the speakers to choose one or the other, or say they're both okay, or express dissatisfaction with both formulations and give us one that works. > And by now, of course, if there were a problem originally, things may have > started sounding right that way, another standard elicitation problem. > Enough repetitions and sometimes even the wrong stuff sounds OK. Argh! Yes, I worry about this. > What I might do in a situation like this - and this is more instinct than > vast experience - is to ask for unrelated sentences (to try to escape any > "training" effect) like "I speak Pawnee." or "They were speaking Kiowa, so > I didn't understand them." "In Dakota you say it about the same." and so > on, and work up to "Please say ... in Dakota." Then, all you have to do > is substitute Omaha for Dakota. Good advice! I'll try this sometime. > Another thought, in a lot of places in America one talks a language rather > than speaking it. I forget how it works in Nebraska. I can't speak for Nebraska in general, but either one works for me. "Speaking" a language is boringly high-brow; "talking" it is humorously low-brow. I think this is possibly a good example of grammatical fuzzy rules. To me, 'talk' is more immediate; 'speak' is more time-general. I would be inclined to favor "Do you speak English?" over "Do you talk English?", because I'm asking about the generality. But to command somebody, I might almost prefer "Talk English!" over "Speak English!", because the latter sounds more preachy-- like I'm commanding them to use English all the time rather than just on this occasion. But those are the grammatical rules of one native speaker. Another might understand 'speak' to accept a language name as a direct object, and 'talk' to be properly intransitive. Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 22 21:41:07 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:41:07 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you > and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the > modifier preceded the noun). Yes, that's the way I was taking it at first too. That may still be the correct interpretation. See below. John wrote: > UmaN'haN i'e is Omaha language, too. The only question really is how to > say 'say xxx in Omaha, and maybe 'to speak Omaha', albeit i'e being a verb > as well as a noun offers a hint there. I worked briefly on this last night with one of the speakers, Alberta Canby. She was dealing with a persistent cough and losing her voice at the time, and she was preparing to go the the funeral the next day of a cousin who had been her favorite source for asking about Omaha words, so conditions were not ideal. My half-baked idea was that if ie was i-e, INST-say, "say by means of (Omaha)", as I favor synchronically at least, and if ukkie was u-kki-e, in-RECIPROCAL-say, "talk to one another", "converse", then it should be possible to combine the two forms as i-u-kki-e, INST-in-RECIPROCAL-say, => udhu'kkie, which should be able to take UmoN'hoN as a complement in the same way as ie. Thus: UmoN'hoN udhu'kkie == 'speak to someone in Omaha' After a couple of tries, she did accept udhu'kkie as a word. I then tried to build up from (hypothetical) e', 'say': At first, I tried to get "Say 'dog' in Omaha!" This failed, as the predictable answer to that was "s^i'nuda". When I tried casting the sentence in Omaha myself, leaving the English word "dog" in the sentence, I got corrected on grounds that "dog" was not proper Omaha; the word was "s^i'nuda". Okay, so forget situational logic and go for straight-up Omaha: S^i'nudoN UmoN'hoN ia' ga! This worked, but now she tended to gravitate toward a different formulation: S^i'nuda UmoN'hoN ie' thE a' ga! This is about what I had been trying before, except that she closed off the UmoN'hoN ie' with a thE, which is the standard way of changing a verb phrase into an abstract noun. Somewhere in there, I believe I tried, and was rejected on: S^i'nudoN UmoN'hoN a' ga! Then I shifted to ukkie. I think I started out asking her: "How would I say, 'Speak to me in Omaha'?", and immediately got: UmoN'hoN i'e oNwoN'kkia ga! (i.e. u-oN'-kki-e) This seemed clear enough to leave it alone, though there was no thE in this one. Finally I tried my acid test phrase for "Speak to (somebody) in Omaha!": UmoN'hoN udhu'kkia ga! She said you could also say UmoN'hoN i'e ukki'a ga! When I pressed for which of the latter two phrases sounded better, she said they meant the same thing, and that both worked. This doesn't prove my hypothesis about i-e, of course, since instrumental i- can be added to ukkie with no implication that it is the same i- as in ie. But it does raise a few more issues. First, ie thE, or UmoN'hoN ie thE, seems to be a commonly accepted way of referring to the language, and it may be most explicit and formally preferred. Mark has this formulation in most of his chapter titles, and I understand that he carefully worked it out with the speakers. Second, i'e, or UmoN'hoN i'e, can be used by itself, in certain contexts at least, without thE. John has been systematically referring to this word with the accent on the first syllable. My tendency has been to accent the second syllable. I'm starting to suspect that i'e is a clear noun, while ie or ie'/ia' is a verb. When I was first formulating the sentences, I was accenting the second syllable: X UmoN'hoN ie' a' ga! I was eventually corrected to: X UmoN'hoN ia' ga! But perhaps it would have been acceptable if I had said: X UmoN'hoN i'e a' ga! My notes from last night have the second syllable accented in the UmoN'hoN ie' thE phrase, but I only have one example and may have made an error as I was scribbling down the transcription. Mark's chapter names carry no accent mark on the ie. Possibly the accent is neutral in this case, especially if it is being sucked into UmoN'hoN as an appendix. Otherwise, we might have the more interesting possibility that UmoN'hoN i'e == "Omaha speech", while UmoN'hoN ie' thE == "Omaha speaking"-- the abstract nominalization of a verb phrase. Hope that gives us a little more to chew on! Rory P.S. I also asked about patient wa- in "us" and "them" forms. I was assured that there was no difference in pronunciation, and indeed both versions seemed to my dubious hearing abilities to be short. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Fri Jan 23 04:00:23 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:00:23 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: For what it is worth, in IOM one can say Baxoje/ Jiwere ich^e'. In fact, when we made the language study Book I & II in the 1970s, we titled them as such. However, quickly it became apparent that the use of -ich^e'- was redundant. The terms Baxoje/ Jiwere, according to context, means an IOM person, the tribe, the language or a crafted article. When asked of the elders a similar sentence such as you have been working on for Dhegiha, the responce was: Baxoje/ Jiwere iha'ch^e hagun'da ke. I want to talk/ speak Ioway/ Otoe. jgt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: Re: Complementation of i'e > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > FWIW Kaw speakers could/would say "Kka:Nze ie" for 'Kaw language'. I think you > > and Mark are on solid ground. I took it as a compound at the time (since the > > modifier preceded the noun). > > Yes, that's the way I was taking it at first too. > That may still be the correct interpretation. > See below. > > > John wrote: > > UmaN'haN i'e is Omaha language, too. The only question really is how to > > say 'say xxx in Omaha, and maybe 'to speak Omaha', albeit i'e being a verb > > as well as a noun offers a hint there. > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 06:34:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:34:16 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: <00b901c3e165$7139b660$d8430945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > For what it is worth, in IOM one can say Baxoje/ Jiwere ich^e'. The CSD 'speak' set: Cr ili'i 'talk' Hi ire'? 'speak, talk' Ma kiraN?r 'tell' Da iya' OP i'e Ks i'e Os i'e Qu i'e Wi hit?e IO ic?e' ~ it?a (ablaut controls affrication here) Bi *(k)i'e 'say that (to him)'; *ade' 'to talk, speech, language' Of ile' 'speak' To tell the truth, I'm not positive the Mandan form or the second Biloxi one fit the set. The Mandan form in particular looks like the stem -dhaN (< *raN) that gets dragged into the conjugation of *e...he 'to speak' in Dhegiha, to supply the suppletive root of the inclusive form aNdhaN'=i. The IO and Winnebago forms, which Jimm's example called to mind, the editors suggest may involve a combination of epenthetic r and ? (glottal stop). When unglossed the forms take the standard sort of glosses we have been dealing with. As we've seen, all of these forms are inflected, mostly as actives, but the Hidatsa is an inalienable possessive. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 07:11:56 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:11:56 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > My half-baked idea was that if ie was i-e, INST-say, "say by means of > (Omaha)", as I favor synchronically at least, and if ukkie was u-kki-e, > in-RECIPROCAL-say, "talk to one another", "converse", then it should be > possible to combine the two forms as i-u-kki-e, INST-in-RECIPROCAL-say, > => udhu'kkie, which should be able to take UmoN'hoN as a complement in > the same way as ie. Thus: > > UmoN'hoN udhu'kkie == 'speak to someone in Omaha' > > After a couple of tries, she did accept udhu'kkie as a word. > ... > Then I shifted to ukkie. I think I started out asking > her: "How would I say, 'Speak to me in Omaha'?", and > immediately got: > > UmoN'hoN i'e oNwoN'kkia ga! (i.e. u-oN'-kki-e) > > This seemed clear enough to leave it alone, though > there was no thE in this one. > > Finally I tried my acid test phrase for "Speak to > (somebody) in Omaha!": > > UmoN'hoN udhu'kkia ga! > > She said you could also say > > UmoN'hoN i'e ukki'a ga! > > When I pressed for which of the latter two phrases > sounded better, she said they meant the same thing, > and that both worked. > > This doesn't prove my hypothesis about i-e, of course, > since instrumental i- can be added to ukkie with no > implication that it is the same i- as in ie. But it > does raise a few more issues. In the Dorsey texts there is an udhukkie, sure enough. Ukki'e seems to work out to 'speak to'. Though the kki does look like it might be an etymological reciprocal, there's no real trace of it in the glossing that I've ever noted. I'm tempted to adopt Bob's argument that not everything that looks like morpheme X is necessarily morpheme X. Maybe this u + kk(V) + ie. I have no idea what the kkV would be. Simple ukki'e 90:614.13 u'wakkia=bi=ama, ukki'abi iNs^?age=akha he spoke to them U. old man "Old Man Ukki'abi spoke to them." u'wakki(e) (undoing the ablaut) is wa + ukki'e => u'kkie with a pleonastic inserted Obj3p wa, this being one of the verbs that does that. Old Man Ukki'abi is a wizard in a series of Ponca stories. Note that his name is basicly a nominalization of Ukkie. There is also a reflexive possessive stem ugi'kkie 'to speak to one's own', which tends to add some luster to the possibility that kk(i) here is not the reciprocal, or at least not synchronically, since normally you can't combine the reflexive possessive with a reciprocal/reflexive. 90:601.12 iga'xdhaN=dhiNkhe ugi'kkia=bi=egaN his wife having spoken to her "Having spoken to his wife, ..." And, we also have udhu'kkie (wa form wi'ukkie) from i + ukki'e, though this example shows the i- apparently governing "the thing spoken of." 90:99.3 u's^kaN wiN ebdhe'=gaN e'=de udhu'wikkie=tta=miNkhe deed a I think but I will speak to you about it something I think a "Let me tell you something that I am thinking." The "deed a I think but" (or actually "deed one I think but") is Dorsey's interlinear glossing. The second version "something I think a" is my attempt. I believe u's^kaN "wherein there is motion" is essentially an indefinite reference to action. It appears a lot in somewhat mysterious ways that this analysis seems to make sense of. One more lexical use that I recall is u's^k u'daN, 'deed good' to use Dorsey's rendition, which was used once by Mr Clifford Wolfe to refer to a party, "a doings," to celebrate his return from WWII. In essence this is an analog of the probably morphosyntactically and morphophonemically impossible "wa-udaN" 'something that's good'. The e'de that Dorsey translates generally as "but" seems to me to be the analog of Dakota c^ha used to indicate an indefinite relative. In this case Coyote is about to make a proposition to his dupe, Cougar. === Note: I keep running across forms in OP that I'd like to write with the apostrophe of contraction. Unfortunately, I'm using apostrophe expediently for accent, but if I omit it in that sense to avoid confusion, just now I'd like to have written u's^k u'daN as us^k' udaN. Similarly, forms like ed' es^e 'you said something; what did you say' or naNb' udhixdha 'ring', and on and on. Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. (Pardon my very weak Italian.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 15:58:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:58:57 -0700 Subject: OP ukki'e 'to speak to'; X ie' (N.B.) ukki'e 'to speak language X with' Message-ID: Actually, it appears that in addition to having a reflexive possessive or suus form ugi'kkie, this verb also has a reciprocal ukki'kkie and a dative which probably has the form (?) ui'kkie. The reciprocal occurs in 90:86.5: ukki'kkia=bi=ama they talked to each other Also 90:380.2 ukki'kkia=i=the they talked together In conection with 'talk to' I located the desired example of "speak Omaha"! Dorsey 90:419.2 INda'daN ukki'tha=i a? wa?u'z^iNga, ehe'. What (enemy) tribe QUESTION (o) old wman I said PpaN'kka ebdhe'gaN. UmaN'haN ie' ua'wakkia=i. Ponca I think Omaha language I spoke with them. This is the aftermath of an attack on the Omaha women as they emptied their caches. In the event the Omaha-fluent attackers turn out to be Dakotas. Dorsey renders the verb 'they talked to me', which is plainly reversed in sense from what it is. And here, by the way, ie' 'word(s); language' does receive final accent in Dorsey. This also occurs in wa'xe ie'ska 'English interpreter' and otherwise in ie'ska 'interpreter' and in ie' u's^kaN 'word and deed' and ie' dhanaN'?aN 'when you hear (my) word(s)' and ie' ed=e's^e 'word() that you say'. Rory's suspicion that the accent shifts in nominal usage seems to be right on the money. The dative occurs in 90:613.4: iNwiN'dhakkie (u-iN-dha-kkie) you speak to me for her This suggests the stem for ui'kkie, though that isn't actually attested. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 23 17:41:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:41:20 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: > Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. Speranza is the only problem. Your recapitulating the cognate set reminded me of the WI and CH forms that suggest an earlier glottal stop between the 2 vowels. Another possible explanation for the hiatus. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 23 18:27:05 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:27:05 -0700 Subject: Complementation of i'e In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D0123398C@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. > > Speranza is the only problem. Espanglish influence. > Your recapitulating the cognate set reminded me of the WI and CH forms > that suggest an earlier glottal stop between the 2 vowels. Another > possible explanation for the hiatus. Bob You mean for why Dhegiha doesn't have idhe? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 23 19:52:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:52:19 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: Well, if it were earlier /i?e/ we could say loss of the glottal stop postdated epenthesis of *dh. We know the two changes were in close competition because of the WI and CH reflexes that mix the two. I'll have to see how we reconstructed that in proto-MVS, etc. Not that I may not change my mind. . . . Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 12:27 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Complementation of i'e On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Lasciate ogni esperanza voi ch'entrate. > > Speranza is the only problem. Espanglish influence. > Your recapitulating the cognate set reminded me of the WI and CH forms > that suggest an earlier glottal stop between the 2 vowels. Another > possible explanation for the hiatus. Bob You mean for why Dhegiha doesn't have idhe? From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 23 22:27:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:27:34 -0600 Subject: Complementation of i'e Message-ID: > P.S. I also asked about patient wa- in "us" and "them" > forms. I was assured that there was no difference > in pronunciation, and indeed both versions seemed > to my dubious hearing abilities to be short. It would be interesting if the second /a/ associated with this morpheme were lost unless an intervening morpheme were present, but somehow it doesn't seem logical. Is the individual you're working with one of those who maintains the minimal pairs for V length otherwise? I can't wait until I encounter some of these things in the Kansa recordings I'm retranscribing in my "spare" time. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Jan 25 20:11:32 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:11:32 -0700 Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy In-Reply-To: <200401150514.i0F5E11M002194@fantasy.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > I thought I'd give people some visuals on some of the things I'm doing with > the texts I'm digitizing. I posted the first chapter from "Brave against > the enemy - Thoka wan itkokhip ohitike kine he" (1944), part of the BIA > Indian life reader series, a bilingual english-lakhota modern story. ... Site: http://free.hostdepartment.com/i/imageStorage/nodes/sources/afraidofhawk_br ave/index.html Font: http://home.att.net/~jameskass/CODE2000.ZIP (download, unzip ttf and htm files - the latter explains installing the ttf file and details payment options: $5.00 made on the honor system for single user use) Comments Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format material is the OCR version? This makes me realize that Dorsey's two published text collections (and the LaFlesche ms texts in the APS) are probably as important to scan as the microfilm of the Dorsey ms material. I have tended to think of this project in terms of how to get access to something I have difficulty accessing, not in the larger terms of how to make it universally and conveniently accessible. This approach not only makes the material accessible to specialists who make a certain level of effort, but, really, to everyone. It solves the publication problem as well as the manuscript access problem. User Notes I had a little trouble at first grasping the navigational system - I've always been a bit dullwitted about icons - but once I had the suggested font installed and understood the icons (two arrows means further in a relevant direction than one arrow, like on music players all over the world) and saw the structure of the site: home page > index page > material pages, with material in one of the six presentation formats selected in the home page, and the index organized accordingly, I was OK. You can stay in one format, or switch back and forth as desired. It might help if there were some of those help boxes that you get by hovering, or if the home page said explicitly "Select a format." Maybe the index pages could say index page for format x. From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 26 07:59:18 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:59:18 CST Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy Message-ID: Hi John, Thanks for giving me some feedback! > Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format > material is the OCR version? Yes, it's a slightly proofed version of the ocr results. > This makes me realize that Dorsey's two published text collections (and > the LaFlesche ms texts in the APS) are probably as important to scan as > the microfilm of the Dorsey ms material. As I've been moving along in this project the scope of what is important to scan has been increasing exponentially. I want to set in motion the digitization of the most important sources for Siouan languages for now. But I think as people start to use this kind of thing later this year their sights will keep going higher like mine do. This is really a logical way to go with digitization. > I have tended to think of this > project in terms of how to get access to something I have difficulty > accessing, not in the larger terms of how to make it universally and > conveniently accessible. This approach not only makes the material > accessible to specialists who make a certain level of effort, but, really, > to everyone. It solves the publication problem as well as the manuscript > access problem. Oh goodie, now someone else gets it! This has been a goal all along, to be able to create a digital environment for this data that could be customizable for different peoples' need: students, scholars, speakers... Universal access is the way to go! It's all set up to work as a general digitization project for any medium or subject. And it's also intended to make what would seem like "different" projects (like Algonquian and Siouan language resources) be automatically intergrated to create larger databases and networks. e.g. a preliminary (and constantly updated or else a static) comparative Algonquian-Siouan dictionary could be automatically generated from coded xml text versions of the sources, and an xsl stylesheet written to display it as an edited/annotated version of the automatically generated data with extra data added where necessary, which would in turn become input for other derivative works. I'm sure most people aren't going to understand what I mean until they see it in action though. Soon. > User Notes > > I had a little trouble at first grasping the navigational system - I've > always been a bit dullwitted about icons - but once I had the suggested > font installed and understood the icons (two arrows means further in a > relevant direction than one arrow, like on music players all over the > world) and saw the structure of the site: home page > index page > > material pages, with material in one of the six presentation formats > selected in the home page, and the index organized accordingly, I was OK. > You can stay in one format, or switch back and forth as desired. It might > help if there were some of those help boxes that you get by hovering, or > if the home page said explicitly "Select a format." Maybe the index pages > could say index page for format x. Yes, having help available for every inch of the website will be very important. I plan to have a very detailed plain language help link on each page that will conditionally explain how to use the page based on what the page is and contains. Because of the way I'm designing absolutely everything in xml this will be real easy to do. I'll also have a preferences option so you can set the mode you want to work in, like "beginner's mode" which will have labels on everything so you can figure out the navigation easy and then get rid of the labels when you catch on. And tooltips will be there too (the text that shows on hover). In fact, these are only six options out of infinite possibilities. I've spent a lot of time working on theoretical design issues and data modeling because I have plans for the various levels of digitization that are extremely ambitious. The whole project is designed to be segmentable, so you can create versions with only a few features (e.g. only text or only images) or many features depending on your interests and what sources you want to include. It's also all designed to be progressive yet fully functional at all times, so new things can always be added and even works in progress can be accessible with description of what is and isn't done. Once it's up and running there'll never be any "in construction" annoyances. Like with the split screen idea. Eventually I want that to be a proofing screen, so anyone who wants to could work on proofing the ocr results of any page of any scanned source right online and submit their updates right from that page. The whole thing will be interactive as both a way to view and input data, kind of a really souped up archival version of shoebox. There's a ton of other aspects to this, but I wanted to at least get some of the simpler uses of what I'm doing out there for some people to see. Sometime later this year I think I'll have the core programming done and have a fully functional version available for a few sources, with a full manual / intro / guide describing the whole project, the technical details, etc. Take care, Patrick From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 17:22:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:22:00 -0700 Subject: example uses of digitized material - brave against the enemy In-Reply-To: <200401260759.i0Q7xIXR010358@challenge.software.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format > > material is the OCR version? > > Yes, it's a slightly proofed version of the ocr results. It might be worth somehow pointing out in the modes what the difference is between image and text, in terms of implications. The words carry the meaning, of course, but there's a certain "imagish" quality to the text as it appears, perhaps due to the font properties, and it might help to be explicit. I'm impressed that the OCR software can handle more than the ASCII character set. In fact, given your choice of fonts, I assume it might be able to handle essentially arbitrary characters? The Microsoft extended set is extensive, but missing some critical combinations for Siouanists. I also wonder about the potential of the font for use with Siouan languages generally, at least in terms of modern "scholarly usage" and perhaps for older symbol sets. Clearly the disadvantage of specialized solutions like the Standard Siouan set I've prepared with the SIL software is that it doesn't use Unicode encoding. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 18:23:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:23:10 -0700 Subject: Pitch Accent Message-ID: In regard to pitch accent in Mississippi Valley Siouan, something that has come up some recently on the list and in associated discussions I've had off the list, I thought it might be interesting to report that Nancy Hall showed me last year some pitch traces of Winnebago words that, to my mind, more or less matched the phonetic descriptions of Winnebago accent given by Miner. The issue of how and whether Winnebago accent can be predicted is, of course, a separate issue that the traces per se can't resolve, and I understand Hall's own interest to be Winnebago vowel epenthesis. However, for me there were two interesting additions to Miner's picture in Hall's traces. One was that word initial high pitch sequences were not acoustically level, but drifted gradually upward, albeit from a low point higher than the end of the final low sequence. The other was that in one word there was a clear initial low sequence. This word was given as waruc^ in Hall's source, but looked to me like it might be waaruc^, given the relative length of the initial sequence. The word terminated in an abrupt rise and a sliding fall looking like a transition to and an abbreviated instance of the usual HL pattern. Perhaps MVS has initial L sequence words (LHL) as well as HL words, like Crow, though I believe that Crow has LHL words only with initial sequences of short vowels. I thought this might be interesting in view of our wa-prefix discussions and pondering whether some of the wa-prefixes might contrast in form as well as function. We had considered only length, not pitch behavior. Of course, this won't help the Dakotanists, as they report non-pitch-based accent. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From warr0120 at umn.edu Mon Jan 26 19:52:14 2004 From: warr0120 at umn.edu (Pat Warren) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:52:14 CST Subject: brave against the enemy and unicode Message-ID: On 26 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Pat Warren wrote: > > > Very nice! And nice looking, too. I take it that the text format > > > material is the OCR version? I thought I'd mention that a nice look is VERY important to me. Too many great projects get funding to develop databases and have no money or interest in a user interface that's comprehensible or a pleasure to use. I think both are essential if anybody is going to actually use it. > > Yes, it's a slightly proofed version of the ocr results. > > It might be worth somehow pointing out in the modes what the difference is > between image and text, in terms of implications. The words carry the > meaning, of course, but there's a certain "imagish" quality to the text as > it appears, perhaps due to the font properties, and it might help to be > explicit. Yeah, that's important too. The help functions (tooltips and help pages) will explain what's going on there. The TEXT version is a full text version formatted like the original source, that is, with its PHYSICAL structure (page breaks, page layout, typefaces, etc.). And the DATA version (these names are not set in stone) is a full text version that matches the LOGICAL organization of the original (chapters, letters of the alphabet for dictionaries...). > I'm impressed that the OCR software can handle more than the ASCII > character set. In fact, given your choice of fonts, I assume it might be > able to handle essentially arbitrary characters? The Microsoft extended > set is extensive, but missing some critical combinations for Siouanists. Oh John, I'm sorry to break the news, but your computer knowledge is becoming outdated! It was amazing for me when I read the article you and David did in "Making dicitonaries" about the technological history of the Camparative Siouan Dicitonary project. Things have changed so much, and they're about to change so much more. OCR software can work with any writing system you throw at it. Because you can train the software character by character and tell it to recognize several characters together if you like (arabic, chinese, eqyptian hieroglyphs). For non-ASCII characters I tell it to print the unicode code in the output rather than any the character itself, so I don't have to mess with font issues. You can even recognize characters that don't exist in any font yet, just give them a code. OCR has nothing to do with fonts basically, so you're not restrained by what fonts you have. It's pattern recognition, not matching printed characters with fonts on your computer. > I also wonder about the potential of the font for use with Siouan > languages generally, at least in terms of modern "scholarly usage" and > perhaps for older symbol sets. Clearly the disadvantage of specialized > solutions like the Standard Siouan set I've prepared with the SIL software > is that it doesn't use Unicode encoding. Yes, all those cumbersome and idiosyncratic fonts are not really the best way to go anymore. On the one hand, creating a new font is ridiculously easy now, there's cheap easy to use software. And you can append characters to any font you want. But unicode offers such a wide range of characters and combining diacritics anyway, though it'll take a few years before there's more fonts like Code2000 that support the full unicode range (95,221 characters so far). I plan on developing a font for the project that can be added to as needed, and will be free. But remember that as far as anything printed, it can be OCR'd just fine - you don't have to HAVE the quirky font for the OCR to recognize the characters consistently, you just tell the software what to call the character. And if it's already a text file, you can do find and replace to automatically convert to unicode in an instant. It's really worth doing some reading on the Unicode website: http://www.unicode.org/ And here's another very useful font site: http://www.identifont.com/ Ciao, Patrick From rankin at ku.edu Mon Jan 26 20:03:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:03:20 -0600 Subject: Pitch Accent Message-ID: Actually Deloria says Dakotan speakers listen primarily for pitch. I ran across her statement in B&D 1941. As far as I can tell in my field recordings, falling pitch on a final syllable is automatic unless some other syllable is accented. Falling pitch on an initial syllable entails the presence of a long vowel in Kaw -- actually, an over-long vowel, as the contour pitch seems to cause extra lengthening of the syllable (This is for non-monosyllables). More to come as I encounter it. I think the nature of accent is one of the biggest holes in Siouan phonological studies. Unfortunately a lot of our (read: my) recordings don't or didn't make the necessary attempts to avoid list-intonation, especially when going over minimal pairs with speakers. Bob > I thought this might be interesting in view of our wa-prefix discussions and pondering whether some of the wa-prefixes might contrast in form as well as function. We had considered only length, not pitch behavior. Of course, this won't help the Dakotanists, as they report non-pitch-based accent. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 20:50:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:50:02 -0700 Subject: Pitch Accent In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DC7@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Actually Deloria says Dakotan speakers listen primarily for pitch. I > ran across her statement in B&D 1941. Aha! > As far as I can tell in my field recordings, falling pitch on a final > syllable is automatic unless some other syllable is accented. Falling > pitch on an initial syllable entails the presence of a long vowel in Kaw > -- actually, an over-long vowel, as the contour pitch seems to cause > extra lengthening of the syllable (This is for non-monosyllables). More > to come as I encounter it. This is precisely what I noticed in Omaha-Ponca. Falling pitch on CV## in CV' and CVCV' words, e.g., kke' 'turtle' or ttabe' 'ball', and in CV'-V-C... words (typically inflected) across morpheme sequences, e.g., a'-a-gdhiN 'I sat on it' or mu'-a-se 'I cut it off by shooting' (more like [mwaase] with falling on aa). You don't get falls in bisyllables with initial accent (CV'CV) in longer words with second syllable accent, typically inflected (CV-CV'CV), or in words with initial accent like a'gdhiN 'he sat on it' (CV'C...) or mu'se 'he cut it by shooting'. If we write long vowels as two moras, each V, and assume that initial accent requires an initial long vowel, then these work out as CV(V)^, CVCV^, (C)VV'-V(^)-C..., CVV'CV, CV-CV'CV, (C)VV'-V(^)-C... From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Jan 26 23:25:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: Pitch Accent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > This is precisely what I noticed in Omaha-Ponca. Falling pitch on CV## in > CV' and CVCV' words, e.g., kke' 'turtle' or ttabe' 'ball', and in > CV'-V-C... words (typically inflected) across morpheme sequences, e.g., > a'-a-gdhiN 'I sat on it' or mu'-a-se 'I cut it off by shooting' (more like > [mwaase] with falling on aa). You don't get falls in bisyllables with > initial accent (CV'CV) in longer words with second syllable accent, > typically inflected (CV-CV'CV), or in words with initial accent like > a'gdhiN 'he sat on it' (CV'C...) or mu'se 'he cut it by shooting'. If we > write long vowels as two moras, each V, and assume that initial accent > requires an initial long vowel, then these work out as CV(V)^, CVCV^, > (C)VV'-V(^)-C..., CVV'CV, CV-CV'CV, (C)VV'-V(^)-C... I should add that theorizing of this nature is obviously secondary to listening to vowel length vs. accent, however manifested. Also, I've noticed that Ken Miner's Winnebago data treat oppositions like OP aa'agdhiN 'I sat on' vs. aa'gdhiN 'he sat on' (V^CV vs. V'CV, with ^ for falling pitch) in terms of VVCV' vs. VCV' (after the accentual shift) and also that V1V1 + V2 is always shown as reducing to V1V2 there. Also, though it's not specifically relevant to your Kaw investigations, it looks to me as if each of the branches of MVS has to have distinct adjustments of length and accentual pattern. I think only Dhegiha treats some locatives as long (even when not fused with wa) and Dakotan and the others have distinct ways of treating *CV(V)'Ce or accent in compounds, etc. Also, it looks like Dhegiha supports accent on enclitics in some contexts. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 27 15:40:01 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:40:01 -0600 Subject: Pitch Accent Message-ID: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Actually Deloria says Dakotan speakers listen primarily for pitch. I > > ran across her statement in B&D 1941. > Aha! I *may* have cited this by page number in the paper in the WORD volume. It was in the draft I read in Melbourne. Checking it now, the wording isn't quite as I had remembered, but here it is. I think it makes a pretty good case for pitch accent. From the version of the Word paper I read in Melbourne: Languages of the Mississippi Valley Siouan subgroup have most often been described as having "stress", with the implication that accent in Dakotan and Dhegihan is amplitude-based. Boas and Deloria (1941:21) state that "Stress accent plays an important role in Dakota." However they go on to point out that "Syllables bearing the main accent have a high pitch. In rapid speech discrimination between accented and unaccented syllables or those having a secondary accent may be recognized more readily by pitch than by stress. Miss Deloria decides in all doubtful cases the question whether the syllables are accented or not, by pitch." Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Jan 27 20:55:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:55:19 -0600 Subject: Minnesota funding available. Message-ID: While the vast majority of professional linguists on this list get the SSILA Newsletter, I know some members do not, so I'm forwarding this from the latest SSILA mailing. I know nothing about the group personally, but it might be of help to groups involved in revitalization in the North Country. Bob -------------------------------------------------------- Foundation Supports Language Revitalization in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The Grotto Foundation of Minneapolis, in partnership with community leaders and language activists, has made a long-term commitment to the revitalization and restoration of Minnesota's indigenous languages, in particular Ojibwe and Dakota, within Native families and communities. Resources will be used to seed and nurture viable community programs and initiatives that show promise in producing new Native language speakers; have potential for long-lasting family and community impact; and demonstrate the capacity to sustain language revitalization efforts beyond initial Grotto Foundation support. Resources are targeted to the following priority areas: (1) Promising indigenous language revitalization models, including master-apprentice programs, immersion schools, language nests, community language societies or language support organizations, teacher training programs, and innovative new approaches. (2) Community planning initiatives, including research projects that prepare a Native community to produce new and younger Native language speakers. (3) Curriculum development projects in all areas of Native language instruction. (4) Collaborative efforts, information sharing, and technical assistance. Eligible to apply are Federally recognized Indian tribes, colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups that have experience and commitment in service to Native Americans in the Minnesota region. Approximately $300,000 is available on an annual basis, and grants will typically range from $10,000 to $50,000 for one year. The next application deadline will be March 15, 2004. For further information contact: Gabrielle Strong, Program Officer, Grotto Foundation, W-1050 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota St, St. Paul, MN 55101-1312 (gstrong at grottofoundation.org; 763/277-3436). Visit the program webpage at: http://www.grottofoundation.org/native_fset.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alber033 at tc.umn.edu Tue Jan 27 21:32:59 2004 From: alber033 at tc.umn.edu (Patricia Albers) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:32:59 -0600 Subject: Minnesota funding available. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233999@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: The Grotto Foundation has been a strong and much needed advocate of native language interests in the state of Minnesota over the past four years. They have co-sponsored two important language conferences with the Department of American Indian Studies at UofM-Twin Cities. The first focused on efforts to revitalize Dakota language programming in schools and communities region-wide, and the second addressed the different Dakota and Ojibwe language initiatives that Grotto has funded in Minnesota and Wisconsin in recent years. >While the vast majority of professional linguists on this list get >the SSILA Newsletter, I know some members do not, so I'm forwarding >this from the latest SSILA mailing. I know nothing about the group >personally, but it might be of help to groups involved in >revitalization in the North Country. > >Bob > >-------------------------------------------------------- >Foundation Supports Language Revitalization in Minnesota >-------------------------------------------------------- > >The Grotto Foundation of Minneapolis, in partnership with community >leaders and language activists, has made a long-term commitment to >the revitalization and restoration of Minnesota's indigenous >languages, in particular Ojibwe and Dakota, within Native families >and communities. Resources will be used to seed and nurture viable >community programs and initiatives that show promise in producing >new Native language speakers; have potential for long-lasting family >and community impact; and demonstrate the capacity to sustain >language revitalization efforts beyond initial Grotto Foundation >support. > >Resources are targeted to the following priority areas: > >(1) Promising indigenous language revitalization models, including >master-apprentice programs, immersion schools, language nests, >community language societies or language support organizations, >teacher training programs, and innovative new approaches. > >(2) Community planning initiatives, including research projects that >prepare a Native community to produce new and younger Native >language speakers. > >(3) Curriculum development projects in all areas of Native language >instruction. > >(4) Collaborative efforts, information sharing, and technical assistance. > >Eligible to apply are Federally recognized Indian tribes, colleges >and universities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups that >have experience and commitment in service to Native Americans in the >Minnesota region. Approximately $300,000 is available on an annual >basis, and grants will typically range from $10,000 to $50,000 for >one year. > >The next application deadline will be March 15, 2004. > >For further information contact: Gabrielle Strong, Program Officer, >Grotto Foundation, W-1050 First National Bank Building, 332 >Minnesota St, St. Paul, MN 55101-1312 (gstrong at grottofoundation.org; >763/277-3436). Visit the program webpage at: > > >http://www.grottofoundation.org/native_fset.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 28 17:46:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:46:38 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: I've had one of those layman's questions that is hard to answer. We have an agricultural experimental station in Central Kansas called the "Konza Prairie" where they work on varieties of grasses. They want to know how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) yield any insight. I made the point that if you were born, raised and lived all your life on the prairie, you might not actually have a name for it. It's just "home". Similarly, if the world were covered with water, we wouldn't have a word for 'ocean'. I also mentioned that there is a word in Quapaw and Kaw that refers generally to a flat land without trees, but that it is generally thought of as referring to 'flood plain' along a watercourse. The word is /tteghe'/ in Quapaw and /cceghe'/ in Kansa. I think La Flesche's Osage has the latter form with /c/ representing [ts] instead of [c^] in that language. Has anyone else encountered a good term describing the broad expanse of grasslands we find in the prairie/plains? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Jan 28 17:58:46 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:58:46 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: It may not help, but Lak. uses the word oblaye 'flat place' for 'prairie'. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I've had one of those layman's questions that is hard to answer. We > have an agricultural experimental station in Central Kansas called the > "Konza Prairie" where they work on varieties of grasses. They want to > know how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. > > I made the point that if you were born, raised and lived all your life > on the prairie, you might not actually have a name for it. It's just > "home". Similarly, if the world were covered with water, we wouldn't > have a word for 'ocean'. > > I also mentioned that there is a word in Quapaw and Kaw that refers > generally to a flat land without trees, but that it is generally thought > of as referring to 'flood plain' along a watercourse. The word is > /tteghe'/ in Quapaw and /cceghe'/ in Kansa. I think La Flesche's Osage > has the latter form with /c/ representing [ts] instead of [c^] in that > language. Has anyone else encountered a good term describing the broad > expanse of grasslands we find in the prairie/plains? > > Bob > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jan 28 19:09:57 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:09:57 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus Message-ID: I'm probably headed in the wrong direction asking this of the Siouan list, but does anyone have any idea about the etymology of hoppas/hoppus or know of any examples of its use? It refers to some sort of backpack, usually mentioned in Indian or frontier contexts, from late 18c on, mostly in the NE U.S. Thanks, Alan From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jan 28 19:05:16 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:05:16 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rankin, Robert L wrote: > how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. Canadian French and American English 'prairie' refers to grassy areas ranging in size from a small meadow to a great plain. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 19:07:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:07:44 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCB@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I've had one of those layman's questions that is hard to answer. We > have an agricultural experimental station in Central Kansas called the > "Konza Prairie" where they work on varieties of grasses. They want to > know how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. I suppose in a pinch you could use something like "Kaw country." > I made the point that if you were born, raised and lived all your life > on the prairie, you might not actually have a name for it. It's just > "home". Similarly, if the world were covered with water, we wouldn't > have a word for 'ocean'. True, but I think all of the Dhegiha groups were aware of an environmental contrast between bottomlands and their adjacent bluffs and then the flatter lands to the west. > I also mentioned that there is a word in Quapaw and Kaw that refers > generally to a flat land without trees, but that it is generally thought > of as referring to 'flood plain' along a watercourse. I think that's the original sense of prairie in English, too, e.g., as it is used in Lewis & Clark. They refer repeatedly to seeing "a beautiful (or some other description of) prairie." From French placenames like Prairie du Chien I think that prairie must be a French loanword in English. Was it maybe something like a "water meadow"? I suppose this got gradually extended to refer to all western grasslands, and then specialized to refer specifically to tall grass grasslands. At least I think today that ecologists today oppose prairie and steppe, though steppe is only used in English with reference to Asia and as a specialist's term. > Has anyone else encountered a good term describing the broad expanse of > grasslands we find in the prairie/plains? I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 28 19:41:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:41:04 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: > True, but I think all of the Dhegiha groups were aware of an environmental contrast between bottomlands and their adjacent bluffs and then the flatter lands to the west. I think so too. That's basically why I don't like /tteghe'/ as a translation. There was a Kaw village /ccegho:'liN/ 'they live in the flood plain' that specifically signals that it was in those lowlands. > I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. I did mention the thiNta/thiNtowaN 'Teton' use but missed the related (?) Omaha term. I did search the Dorsey 1890 texts but found no reference to prairie except in things like prairie chicken/hen. Same for plains. Thanks for the suggestions. But From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 19:51:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a > somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. > > I did mention the thiNta/thiNtowaN 'Teton' use but missed the related > (?) Omaha term. I did search the Dorsey 1890 texts but found no > reference to prairie except in things like prairie chicken/hen. Same > for plains. I think Dorsey may gloss in land or earth or something like that. Check t.oNdse in LaFlesche. I think I remember something ozo (uzo) vs. ttaNde for lowland vs. upland woods in Quapaw. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 19:46:39 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:46:39 -0700 Subject: hoppas / hoppus In-Reply-To: <40180905.1040801@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > I'm probably headed in the wrong direction asking this of the Siouan > list, but does anyone have any idea about the etymology of hoppas/hoppus > or know of any examples of its use? It refers to some sort of backpack, > usually mentioned in Indian or frontier contexts, from late 18c on, > mostly in the NE U.S. In that shape it might be Winnebago, because of the ho- initial and lack of a final vowel. Ho- is the Winnebago version of *o- 'in, into', which is a common enough initial morpheme of words for containers. I don't recognize the word off hand, but will look further. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Jan 28 19:43:14 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:14 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I think that's the original sense of prairie in English, too, e.g., as it > is used in Lewis & Clark. They refer repeatedly to seeing "a beautiful > (or some other description of) prairie." From French placenames like > Prairie du Chien I think that prairie must be a French loanword in > English. You're right about the borrowing. And from my forthcoming Lewis & Clark lexicon: PRAIRIE A treeless, grassy area, ranging in area from a few acres to many square miles, from a meadow to the Great Plains. Prairie was originally a French word for ?meadow?. a Small Preree on the Larbd. Side [12 Dec 03 WC 2.130] the first 5 miles of our rout laid through a beautifull high level and fertile prarie which incircles the town of St. Louis [20 May 04 ML 2.240] Camped in a Prarie on the L. S.composed of good land and plenty of water roleing & interspursed with points of timbered land, Those Praries are not like those?E. of the Mississippi Void of every thing except grass, they abound with Hasel Grapes & a wild plumb?I Saw great numbers of Deer in the Praries [10 Jun 04 WC 2.292] on the South Side is a beuautiful Bottom prarie which will contain about 2000 acres of Land covered with wild rye and wild potatoes. [10 Jul 04 JO 9.023] crossed thro: the plains?with the view of finding Elk, we walked all day through those praries without Seeing any [20 Jul 04 WC 2.397] those Indians are now out in the praries?Hunting the buffalow [20 Jul 04 WC 2.399] The Prairie are not as one would suppose from the name, meadows or bottoms[,] but a sort of high plain?without timber?This Prairie ground extends from the Wabash to the Mountains [Nicholas Biddle in Jackson Letters (ed. 2) 2.507] From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Jan 28 20:53:52 2004 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Q.) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:53:52 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <401807EC.8050200@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Mrs. Holding (Osage) always said that the name for Hominy district zaaNce'oliiN was 'living on the prairie' (oliiN' is 'live, dwell'). I think LF says "living in the upland forest" in this instance, but she said that was wrong, insisted on 'prairie' or 'country' which she felt to be the same. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:05 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Word for 'prairie'? Rankin, Robert L wrote: > how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > yield any insight. Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. Canadian French and American English 'prairie' refers to grassy areas ranging in size from a small meadow to a great plain. Alan From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed Jan 28 21:43:01 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:43:01 EST Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: The Crow word is ammachu'hke < awa' land + ala 'place where' + ch'uhka 'flat' Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Jan 28 22:04:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:04:30 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: Kaw /zaNje/ is 'upland forest' and the village /zaNjo:'liN/ is usually given as 'they live in the forest'. Kaw /ttaNje/ is 'land like up on a hill/ according to Mrs. Rowe. It's possible that either of these terms might be extended, but the one with /z/ seems to refer to an area with lots of trees. Both Dakota and Crow seem to translate 'flatland', but I don't have an exact Dhegiha equivalent. Again, thanks to everyone for the suggestions. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Q." To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:53 PM Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie'? > Mrs. Holding (Osage) always said that the name for Hominy district > zaaNce'oliiN was 'living on the prairie' (oliiN' is 'live, dwell'). I think > LF says "living in the upland forest" in this instance, but she said that > was wrong, insisted on 'prairie' or 'country' which she felt to be the same. > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Alan Hartley > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:05 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: Word for 'prairie'? > > > Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > > how to say 'prairie' in Kaw. I don't have much I can tell them. > > Does any of your work with Omaha, Ponca or Osage (or other languages) > > yield any insight. > > Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) > meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. > > Canadian French and American English 'prairie' refers to grassy areas > ranging in size from a small meadow to a great plain. > > Alan > > From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 22:20:49 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:20:49 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: In HoChunk: 'hoska / mooska' refer to an opening. It is sometimes glossed as prairie, but I have the sense it refers more to a natural opening in a forest. 'maNaNx' is a clear field. Implies a broader expanse that is totally clear. Maybe this would be the more appropriate term for prairie. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 22:15:15 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:15:15 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus Message-ID: >In that shape it might be Winnebago, because of the ho- initial and lack >of a final vowel. Ho- is the Winnebago version of *o- 'in, into', which >is a common enough initial morpheme of words for containers. I don't >recognize the word off hand, but will look further. Not likely in HoChunk. 'hopase' is a corner. 'hopahas' is to chase towards something, drive something (like herding animals). ' paNaN' is a bag. But backpack is usually wiik'ii. A device used to carry something on the back. I have two native speakers sitting here wiyth me, and they can't make heads nor tails out of hoppas/hoppus, even though they gave it a good try. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ From jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu Wed Jan 28 22:13:42 2004 From: jpboyle at midway.uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:13:42 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The Crow word is ammachu'hke < awa' land + ala 'place where' + ch'uhka 'flat' > >Randy In Hidatsa it is awacuhke . John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 22:52:50 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:52:50 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <401810D2.4070502@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > And from my forthcoming Lewis & Clark lexicon: > > PRAIRIE A treeless, grassy area, ranging in area from a few acres to > many square miles, from a meadow to the Great Plains. Prairie was > originally a French word for ?meadow?. > > a [12 Dec 03 WC 2.130] > > the first 5 miles of our rout laid through fertile prarie which incircles the town of St. Louis> [20 May 04 ML > 2.240] > > Camped in a composed of good land and plenty of water > roleing & interspursed with points of timbered land, not like those?E. of the Mississippi> Void of every thing except grass, > they abound with Hasel Grapes & a wild plumb?I Saw great numbers of Deer > in the Praries [10 Jun 04 WC 2.292] > > > which will contain about > 2000 acres of Land covered with wild rye and wild potatoes. [10 Jul 04 > JO 9.023] > > crossed thro: the plains?with the view of finding Elk, we walked all day > through those praries without Seeing any [20 Jul 04 WC 2.397] > those Indians are now out in the praries?Hunting the buffalow [20 Jul 04 > WC 2.399] > > The bottoms[,]> but a sort of high plain?without timber?This Prairie ground > extends from the Wabash to the Mountains [Nicholas Biddle in Jackson > Letters (ed. 2) 2.507] There seems to be a certain assumption that a prairie ought to be along a river, or, as it is often said, in a bottom. See added <> above. Of course, except in the Biddle quotation, it could be argued that a voyage along a stream imposes a chance collocation of prairie and streamside, while the 20 Jul 04 quotation from LC seems not to involve a streamside. Of course, the progression from streamside to grassland in general may have begun in LC's usage or at least be attested there in early form. On the other hand I notice that Biddle even seems to assume that the term meadow implies streamside. I think that the early Colonial period, several centuries earlier than this, the 1600s say, coincided with the development of something called a water meadow in England, which I understand to be an irrigated area (along a stream) deliberately kept in grass and used to raise fodder. I may easily be wrong in the streamside reading of prairie, as my reading in the matter is definitely not as extensive or attentive as yours, Alan, and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen this stated anywhere in so many words, though, on the other hand, I think it must have been tolerably clear for me to pick up on it! I don't recall my original context, sadly. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 23:08:43 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:08:43 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <00a601c3e5ea$c7599270$0db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Kaw /zaNje/ is 'upland forest' and the village /zaNjo:'liN/ is usually > given as 'they live in the forest'. Kaw /ttaNje/ is 'land like up on a > hill/ according to Mrs. Rowe. It's possible that either of these terms > might be extended, but the one with /z/ seems to refer to an area with > lots of trees. OP zaN'de 'grove' (in Dorsey). I tend to suspect that "upland" or "up on a hill" are intended as the opposite of "bottomland" or "lowland," and that in the context of this region along the Missouri and Mississippi these expressions refer to "along the major rivers, in their floodplains" (bottom lands) and "up on the bluffs and beyond on the flatlands up there" (upland areas). The uplands are typically fairly treeless, but not entirely so, and the bottomlands are often comparatively heavily covered with gallery forest. We have to assume that prairie in the proposed name refers to upland grasslands, I guess! Along the Missouri in Nebraska the lowland/upland contrast is pretty extreme. On the Nebraska side the bluffs are quite close to the river, enclosing pockets lowlands of various sizes. On the Iowa side the bluffs are off in the distance or out of sight and the ground is flat and there are lots of marshy areas. At the top of the bluffs there is a band of forest (not cottonwoods, but I don't know what) and then beyond there are more or less rolling grasslands (mostly in corn and millet now). I'm not a native, only an occasional visitor, and some of the locals on the list may wish to correct this slapdash assessment of their topography. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Jan 28 23:19:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:19:04 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > In HoChunk: > > 'hoska / mooska' refer to an opening. It is sometimes glossed as prairie, > but I have the sense it refers more to a natural opening in a forest. Maybe a "glade"? Or you see "clearing" without any implication of "cleared land." In a way I've been assuming that the original sense of prairie was "an open area along a stream." > 'maNaNx' is a clear field. Implies a broader expanse that is totally clear. > Maybe this would be the more appropriate term for prairie. Both mooska and maNaNx have a certain resemblance to the Algonquian set Alan mentioned: > Some Algonquian languages have a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) > meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. I've always wondered about the Winnebago mo vs. maN contrast. This looks like a place where m and n before nasal vowels falls down. I'd wondered if moo was an orthographic variant of maNaN, but it sounds like this was too facile an assumption by far. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 29 05:42:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:42:11 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCC@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > JEK> I think OP uses ttaNde' in that sense. I believe this must be a > somewhat irregular correspondence for Dakota thiNta as in Teton. > > I did mention the thiNta/thiNtowaN 'Teton' use but missed the related > (?) Omaha term. I did search the Dorsey 1890 texts but found no > reference to prairie except in things like prairie chicken/hen. Same > for plains. I checked LaFlesche and found t.oN'-dse /htoN'ce/ 'the earth or ground; prairie without trees' and t.oN'-dse-gi /htoN'ceki/ 'of or pertaining to the prairie'. He also gives t.oN'-de 'ground' and t.oN'-de da-pa 'round hills' (rounded uplands?). The glossing here may owe something to OP, and the spelling with -de instead of -dse certainly owes something to OP phonology. On the other hand ta'ppa 'round' doesn't seem to occur in OP. UmoN'hon Iye gives toNde /ttoN'de/ 'earth, ground'. There are various compounds, none of which seem to me to suggest prairie. There isn't anything for 'prairie', but 'plain' lists moN snoNsnoN 'flat ground'. Dorsey's texts have tan'de (ke) /ttaN'de (khe)/ '(the) ground' (something you can tread on, dig, measure), ttaN'de a'dhitta=xc^i snaN'snaN=xc^i 'ground near by, very level', ttaN'de maNtha'=ta 'into the ground'. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 29 05:56:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:56:59 -0700 Subject: Locative *-ki (RE: Word for 'prairie'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I checked LaFlesche and found t.oN'-dse /htoN'ce/ 'the earth or ground; > prairie without trees' and t.oN'-dse-gi /htoN'ceki/ 'of or pertaining to > the prairie'. The latter occurs as a modifier in t.oN-dse gi'wa-zhiN-ga 'birds of the prairie lands', presumably htaN'ce=ki waz^iN'ka. This seems to involve a postposition =ki that might match IO =gi 'in' (c^hi'naN=gi 'in the city') or Winnebago =(e)gi 'in'. There's nothing like this that I'm aware of in OP, unless maybe -gi in wakkaNdagi 'water monster; wonderful'. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 29 14:55:47 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:55:47 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: Personally, I've always distinguished 'prairie' from 'plains'. Prairie has more trees scattered about, plains fewer. This, in turn, relates to annual rainfall in large degree. And I assume lots of other factors like soil type, etc. are involved. The folks I'm corresponding with in Central KS are botanists however, and their primary interest is in the "tall grass prairie" found in that area. I sort of suspect they might have naming in mind or maybe some sort of newsletter article. I have one or two linguistic comments on the Hochunk and Hidatsa forms, but I'll get to them after classes today. Bob From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 29 15:00:48 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:00:48 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's the first portion of the OED entry for PRAIRIE, followed by MEADOW. It surpised me to see how late prairie entered English from Canadian French. (The ante 1682 quot. cites it as a French word, so 1773 is OED's earliest English example.) The 'great plain' sense of the word is definitely secondary (19c). A tract of level or undulating grass-land, without trees, and usually of great extent; applied chiefly to the grassy plains of North America; a savannah, a steppe. Also (U.S. local), a marsh, a swampy pond or lake. (In salt or soda prairie, extended to a level barren tract covered with an efflorescence of natron or soda, as in New Mexico, etc.; in trembling or shaking prairie, to quaking bog-land covered with thin herbage, in Louisiana.) [a1682 SIR T. BROWNE Tracts (1684) 201 The Prerie or large Sea-meadow upon the Coast of Provence.] 1773 P. KENNEDY Jrnl. in T. Hutchins Descr. Virginia, etc. (1778) 54 The Prairie, or meadow ground on the eastern side, is at least twenty miles wide. Ibid. 55 The lands are much the same as before described, only the Prairies (Meadows) extend further from the river. 1787 J. HARMAR in E. Denny Milit. Jrnl. (1860) 423 The prairies are very extensive, natural meadows, covered with long grass,..like the ocean, as far as the eye can see, the view is terminated by the horizon. 1791 D. BRADLEY Jrnl. 19 Sept. (1935) 17 A prairia of two or three hundred acres where the grass or wild oats is 8 or 10 feet high and very thick. Ibid. 12 Oct. 22 Struck a large prairia in our coursefound it impassable. 1794 W. CLARK Jrnl. 1 Aug. in Mississippi Valley Hist. Rev. (1914) I. 421 An open..Pararie..handsomly interspersed with Small Copse of Trees. 1795 J. SMITH in Ohio Archaeol. & Hist. Q. (1907) XVI. 380 We saw several pararas, as they are called. They are large tracts of fine, rich land, without trees and producing as fine grass as the best meadows. 1805 PIKE Sources Mississ. (1810) 7 Four hundred yards in the rear, there is a small prairie of 8 or 10 acres, which would be a convenient spot for gardens. 1806 New Eng. Republican in Massachusetts Spy 16 July 1/5 A venerable Philosopher sitting in the middle of an immense Map, marked with vast praires, huge rivers, and mountains of salt. 1809 A. HENRY Trav. 264 The Plains, or, as the French denominate them, the Prairies, or Meadows, compose an extensive tract of country. 1815 SOUTHEY in Q. Rev. XII. 326 A large Oak tree stands alone in a prairie... (Note. If this word be merely a French synonime for savannah, which has long been naturalized, the Americans display little taste in preferring it.) 1819 E. DANA Geogr. Sk. Western Country 37 The ore is dug from an open praira. Ibid. 108 There are two kinds of praira, the river and upland. 1834 D. CROCKETT Narr. Life xii. 85, I came to the edge of an open parara, and looking on before my dogs, I saw in and about the biggest bear that ever was seen in America. c1834 H. EVANS in Chron. Oklahoma (1925) III. 181 We could look and behold..one continual large expanse of Pararie. And the definitions of MEADOW: 1. a. A piece of land permanently covered with grass to be mown for use as hay; (gen.) a grassy field or other area of grassland, esp. one used for pasture. Also (regional): a tract of low well-watered ground, esp. near a river (cf. WATER-MEADOW n.). b. Land used as a meadow or meadows. c. Hay mown from a meadow. 2. Chiefly N. Amer. A tract of uncultivated grassland, esp. a low-level one along a river or in a marshy region near the sea; (also) a tract of uncultivated upland pasture. 3. a. N. Amer. (chiefly Newfoundland). An area of sea ice on which seals haul out in large numbers. b. An area of sea rich in seaweed or small marine organisms, esp. providing a feeding ground for whales or fish. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 29 16:10:45 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:10:45 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who helped--with negative evidence--on the etym. of HOPPAS. One possibility is that the word is from Eng. 'hopper', a basket or other container carried on the back and used to hold seed for sowing, et al. R-dropping explains the lack of -r, but how to explain the -s (unless it was orig. the pl. marker)? Alan From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Jan 29 16:31:59 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:31:59 -0600 Subject: hoppas / hoppus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Please excuse the continued non-Siouan digression, but I just--what are the odds?--ran across the word in T. Procter's Diary (1791) in Amer. State Papers vol. IV (Indian Affairs vol. I) (1832) p. 151 "You are just now rising from your seats, with your backs bent, bearing your loaded hoppas." The Iroquois speaker here (in translation) is apparently using the word in the plural, so it might indeed be an r-less 'hopper'. (This antedates the earliest example (Lewis and Clark) in Mathews' Dict. of Americanisms by 12 years.) Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 29 17:22:57 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:22:57 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: I'm coming into the prairie discussion a little late, but I thought of one more possibility that I don't think has been raised. In Fletcher and La Flesche, "The Omaha Tribe", the name for the village around modern Omaha and Bellevue that the tribe lived in from 1847-1856 is described. The gloss given is "the hill rising in the center of a plain". In Omaha, it is given as: pahu'dhoNdadhoN At the end of my first year in Mark's Omaha class, one of the other students and I were having a little trouble making sense of this. The first part is certainly "hill", and the last syllable is surely the positional dhoN, which is used for village establishments. What comes between ought to convey the "rising in the center of a plain" concept. ppahe-u-dhoNda-dhoN (I think it's ppa'he, not pha'he. Correct, John?) hill-in-plain(?)-GLOB Generally u- works in the opposite direction from English 'in'. It is usually prefixed to a verb, and implies that the verb's action takes place in, into, or in the context of, the preceding noun complement. That might suggest something happening in the hill, which contradicts the gloss. Otherwise, we have to see ppa'he, 'hill', as being the head of the NP, with the complement of u- not explicitly stated. That would mean udhoNda == 'in the center of a plain', or perhaps just 'in a plain'. Unless nouns can ever be prefixed by u-, I think we would have to understand dhoNda as a stative verb describing a type of land as 'flat', 'level', 'treeless', 'tall-grassy' or whatever. Perhaps the Dhegihans referred to plains or prairies using stative verbs, rather than nouns? Or perhaps udhoNda simply means 'towering over the surroundings'? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Jan 29 20:27:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:27:42 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > ppahe-u-dhoNda-dhoN (I think it's ppa'he, not pha'he. > Correct, John?) Yes. Not sure about the accent. I'd have to look into udhaNda. It looks a bit unusual in form. Note that the positional articles have corresponding verbal forms with locatives u and a, though I think dhaN usually comes out naN in that context: the ithe=...dhe dhaN inoN=...dhe khe ihe=...dhe (The i here is probably not a locative, however.) I wonder if the form isn't something like ppah(e) udhaN=di-a-dhaN, but my understanding of linking -a- doesn't explain it here. Before =di, yes; after, no. JEK From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 29 20:58:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:58:18 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Following up on what John said, I'd hazard that Hocangara /mooska/ is pretty clearly a borrowing from a neighboring Algonquian language. The term /maaNx/ is interesting because the related term in the majority of the more westerly Siouan languages is the term for 'sky' or 'upper world'. It's still a clear expanse, but up there rather than down to earth. So if the two terms are as related as they look, they're nice examples of semantic change. And, sorry, the comment I thought I had on the Hidatsa form isn't. I had misread it. Bob From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 21:20:20 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:20:20 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: >The term /maaNx/ is interesting because the related term in the majority >of the more westerly Siouan languages is the term for 'sky' or 'upper >world'. It's still a clear expanse, but up there rather than down to >earth. So if the two terms are as related as they look, they're nice >examples of semantic change. I won't hazard a guess on if they are related, but the HoChunk word for 'sky, cloud' is /maNaNxi/. Would be interesting if these are related in some way. Hen _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Jan 29 22:16:57 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:16:57 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: John wrote: > Note that the positional articles have > corresponding verbal forms with locatives u and a, though I think dhaN > usually comes out naN in that context: > > the ithe=...dhe > dhaN inoN=...dhe I'm almost sure that Dorsey uses idhaN'dhe for this. No examples off the top of my head, though. There do seem to be some differences between Dorsey (Ponka?) and modern Omaha in pronunciation of dh / n around a nasal vowel. In Dorsey, 'on the other side' is masa'ni, while our speakers insist on ma(N)saN'dhiN. > 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? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Jan 29 22:31:49 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:31:49 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > I won't hazard a guess on if they are related, but the HoChunk word for > 'sky, cloud' is > /maNaNxi/. Would be interesting if these are related in some way. Hmmm, that *is* interesting. The Kaw, etc. word is maaNxe 'sky, upper world' (upper world having a religious reference). By the usual sound changes this would come out maaNx in HC, since HC usually loses final, unaccented /-e/ after a single consonant. So far, so good. But maaNxi, with its different final vowel, would remain as it is in HC, and there is no obvious cognate term in Dhegiha dialects with the /-i/ that I know of. So it's still hard to decide if the two words are indeed related. 'Cloud' in Dhegiha dialects is *maNxp?. The umlauted u unrounds to [i] in Omaha, Ponca and Quapaw. So it's a compound of maaNx(e/i?) and the latter part. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 01:07:08 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:07:08 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164DCD@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Following up on what John said, I'd hazard that Hocangara /mooska/ is > pretty clearly a borrowing from a neighboring Algonquian language. It works a bit differently from 'bow', where the -kw appears as -gu. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Jan 30 01:35:13 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:35:13 -0500 Subject: Word for 'prairie' In-Reply-To: <00ca01c3e678$01998c50$0db5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: 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. It should be noted (or not :-) that the Kankakee area, except for a long the edge of the river itself, was almost treeless (there were exceptions--timbered moraines here and there and the occasional windblown "mound" of sand covered in oaks). Michael On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Personally, I've always distinguished 'prairie' from 'plains'. Prairie has more > trees scattered about, plains fewer. This, in turn, relates to annual rainfall > in large degree. And I assume lots of other factors like soil type, etc. are > involved. The folks I'm corresponding with in Central KS are botanists however, > and their primary interest is in the "tall grass prairie" found in that area. I > sort of suspect they might have naming in mind or maybe some sort of newsletter > article. > > I have one or two linguistic comments on the Hochunk and Hidatsa forms, but I'll > get to them after classes today. > > Bob > > > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 30 01:53:00 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:53:00 -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 OED says, PLAIN n1.: 1. a. A tract of country of which the general surface is comparatively flat; an extent of level ground or flat meadow land; applied spec. (in proper or quasi-proper names) to certain extensive tracts of this character; e.g. Salisbury Plain, the Great Plain of England, etc. In pl. spec. the river valleys of N. India." (first 1297) b. Chiefly pl. In Colonial and U.S. use applied to level treeless tracts of country; prairie. (first 1779) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 14:56:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:56:23 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > >The term /maaNx/ is interesting because the related term in the majority > >of the more westerly Siouan languages is the term for 'sky' or 'upper > >world'. It's still a clear expanse, but up there rather than down to > >earth. So if the two terms are as related as they look, they're nice > >examples of semantic change. > > I won't hazard a guess on if they are related, but the HoChunk word for > 'sky, cloud' is /maNaNxi/. Would be interesting if these are related in > some way. Actually, the CSD does have a small 'field' set including the Winnebago form - Dakotan ma(N)'gha 'field, cultivated area', ma(N)'ghahu 'cornstalk', IO maN'aNxe 'cornfield', Wi maN'aNx 'field, tract, garden'. This doesn't sem to have a Dhegiha cognate, maybe because any comparable form would conflict with maN'(aN)ghe 'sky, upper world'. Dhegiha has forms based on *owe for 'field'. Dorsey always gives the OP form as u?e, which I took to be from *o-K?e 'in which to dig or hoe', but I see that even Quapaw and Osage, which would retain k?, seem to have -we. IO, which would also have k? from *k? also has uwe' 'field, rows of plants'. It would be extremely interesting metaphor, if 'field' and 'upper world' had any connection. Like Henning I'm not sure I would hazard such a connection, but there is at least one story motif in which women digging in the upper world discover the earth through a hole they make in the upper world. I believe they are usually digging for roots, but hoeing might do as well. It would at least support a pun or two. In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound *maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. If moo'ska is a loan froma model like > a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox > mas^kote:wi, Ojibway mas^kode. (I assume these are the underpinnings of Mascoutin?) then we also have to explain what happened to the -te(:wi). For example, can this initial occur without that additional material or might the initial be borrowed as an independent form? JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 15:10:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:10:00 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm almost sure that Dorsey uses idhaN'dhe for this. No examples off the > top of my head, though. I'm misremembering. You're right, idhaN'=...dhe: JOD 1890:36.6 kku'saNde=xti idhaN'=dha=i 'he put it (an arrow) right through (himself)' The inaN=...dhe occurs in LaFlesche: 77a i-noN-the 'to put upon the ground' (also 'dispersed the clouds'!), but then 80a i-thoN-the 'to put something away that is round'. Even Kaw has iyaN=...ye. > > 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? I'll try to take this up later! From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Jan 30 15:22:05 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:22:05 -0800 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > If moo'ska is a loan from a model like >> a word based on a root (*mas^kw- ?) meaning 'grass', e.g., Fox mas^kote:wi, >> Ojibway mas^kode. > (I assume these are the underpinnings of Mascoutin?) Yes, according to HNAI 15: 672, it means 'people of the small prairies'. It's related to */e$kwete:wi/ 'fire'. > then we also have to explain what happened to the -te(:wi). For example, can > this initial occur without that additional material or might the initial be > borrowed as an independent form? No on the first, and I doubt the second. The shortest form of the word you'd find would be Ojibwe /mashkode/. But it wouldn't really bother *me* to say that when the Hochunks borrowed this word they only borrowed the first two syllables. Dave From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 15:23:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:23:01 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > ppahe-u-dhoNda-dhoN (I think it's ppa'he, not pha'he. > > Correct, John?) > > Yes. Not sure about the accent. I'd have to look into udhaNda. The texts have udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 90:436.8), udhaN'da 'middle of the tribal circle' (JOD 90:601.17), niN'udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 91:39.2). I haven't detected any other uses of the root dhaNda. There is naN'de 'side of the lodge', which ablauts with postpositions: naN'da=tta 'at the side of the lodge, by the wall'. I doubt that could be connected. I guess this is 'the island hill'. Dorsey gives mostly ppahe', but twice ppa'he, for 'hill'. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 16:11:55 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:11:55 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > Actually, the CSD does have a small 'field' set including the Winnebago form - Dakotan ma(N)'gha 'field, cultivated area', ma(N)'ghahu 'cornstalk', IO maN'aNxe 'cornfield', Wi maN'aNx 'field, tract, garden'. Good point. I'd forgotten about that entirely. > This doesn't sem to have a Dhegiha cognate, maybe because any comparable form would conflict with maN'(aN)ghe 'sky, upper world'. In Dhegiha the stems with final -i often fall together with those having -e. So it's entirely possible that maaNxi/e fell together. Winnebago is very good at keeping them separate. > while a loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound *maNaN-ska 'white earth'. I'm not inclined to buy into that one. It's true that throughout Dhegiha there is a tendency for /aN/ after an /m/ to be pronounced [oN] or simply [o], but I've never seen this extended to Hochunk at all. HC seems to be very good about keeping it's /aN/'s in the [a] range. It would make a good folk etymology, but I think it's much more realistic to assume that [maaskw-] simply transferred its rounding from /kw/ to the preceding /a/ in the borrowing process. I have nothing to offer for the rhyming hooska though. Bob From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 17:03:34 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:03:34 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: >In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a >loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound >*maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - >perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be >expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases >I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For >forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', >moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent >initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I >wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. moowe 'to walk, follow a path' maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' mooci 'cellar, den' maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' mooska 'clearing or field' maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to tell me. they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the bank of a lake or any water body. moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even then they would rather say maNaN haja. Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I was with didn't like that analyses. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ High-speed users?be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 17:13:59 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:13:59 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: I forgot some info. While hoska refers to a clearing, it is also used to refer to an opening in the clouds, or anything where an opening is letting light in. Mooska refers specifically to a clearing on the ground, either a small clearing in the woods or a large prairie. Mooska is often used to talk about thwe western plains, especially by elders talking about the removal periods. So maNaN + hoska makes sense in this context. Henning _________________________________________________________________ Find high-speed ?net deals ? comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 30 18:53:13 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:53:13 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Quick tyro question-- Is the leading ho- on (almost) every second word of the list below the Hochunk equivalent of the MVS locative prefix *o-, OP u-, 'in'? Thanks, Rory "Henning Garvin" cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. owner-siouan at lists.c olorado.edu 01/30/2004 11:03 AM Please respond to siouan >In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a >loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound >*maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - >perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be >expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases >I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For >forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', >moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent >initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I >wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. moowe 'to walk, follow a path' maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' mooci 'cellar, den' maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' mooska 'clearing or field' maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to tell me. they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the bank of a lake or any water body. moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even then they would rather say maNaN haja. Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I was with didn't like that analyses. Henning Garvin Linguistic research Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division _________________________________________________________________ High-speed users?be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Jan 30 19:25:44 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:25:44 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: John wrote: > The texts have udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 90:436.8), udhaN'da 'middle of the > tribal circle' (JOD 90:601.17), niN'udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 91:39.2). I > haven't detected any other uses of the root dhaNda. [...] > > I guess this is 'the island hill'. Yes, I'm sure that's right. I looked up 'island' in the Stabler/Swetland dictionary and came up with niu thoNta (i.e., ni-udhoNda) I'm guessing that the -da is an old positional or nominalizer that occurs in conjunction with the leading u-: u-dhaN-da IN_CONTEXT-GLOB-THING which probably means a (globular) eminence standing out upon an otherwise level surface. That would nicely explain both the 'island' and the 'hill arising from the center of a plain' interpretations. The 'middle of the tribal circle' reference is to the Orphan story, I think when he is exalting himself. Perhaps that usage applies as much to his position of prominence as to his centrality in the tribal circle. At any rate, I guess it has nothing to do with 'plain' or 'prairie'. Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Jan 30 19:52:51 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:52:51 -0600 Subject: hoppas etymology Message-ID: Ives Goddard has answered my question: hoppas is from Unami Delaware ha'pi:s 'tump-line', the strap around the forehead or upper chest that bears some or all of the weight of a backpack. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 20:08:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:08:34 -0700 Subject: Epenthetic Initials (RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Quick tyro question-- Is the leading ho- on (almost) every second word > of the list below the Hochunk equivalent of the MVS locative prefix *o-, > OP u-, 'in'? Yes. Winnebago has an epenthetic h on vowel-initial words, with certain exceptions, e.g., not on bare stem initial of verbs inflected as ?-stems, and I think also not on monosyllables of the form V(V). To some extent the first class is the set of verbs of the form of the second class. The usual logic of Winnebago grammars is to treat the h as organic and delete it when some other element precedes, but I don't know if this is the linguists talking or the speakers they worked with. With Winnebago, the linguists and the speakers are fairly commonly one and the same, of course. For an interesting comparison, with Dakota it's Boas & Deloria (Deloria speaking?) who particularly insist on initial epenthetic ? with vowel-initial forms. I believe it was also specifically Deloria who draws attention to final -? (< -?e (?)) as a declarative. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Jan 30 20:23:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:23:34 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' ... > mooska 'clearing or field' > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' > > I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to tell > me. Great work, Henning! This explains the vowels and the accent, and it's really nice that the folks you are working with can recover the underlying forms here. It sounds like hoska must be based on ska in the sense of clearness or lightedness. And the progression with mooska is a lot like that with prairie in English. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 18:11:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:11:29 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: There is the intervening /c/ in 'bow'. Maybe a relative chronology problem too. We have borrowed words two or three times from the same source at different periods with different phonological results. Examples like "cap", "chief" and "chef" come to mind. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:07 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Following up on what John said, I'd hazard that Hocangara /mooska/ is > pretty clearly a borrowing from a neighboring Algonquian language. It works a bit differently from 'bow', where the -kw appears as -gu. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 23:04:08 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:04:08 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > moowe > mooci > mooraje > moos^?ok > mooska So are the above actually occurring contractions of maaN- followed by a morpheme beginning with (h)o-? Or are they forms you constructed to try out with speakers? I still suspect a loan here, but it could maybe be maaN+(h)o+ska if you use John's analysis. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Fri Jan 30 23:06:51 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:06:51 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Yes, and the leading h- is epenthetic, occurring only in WI/HC with these initial forms. It's probably that, if we are seeing contracted forms with the moo- words, contraction took place before epenthesis, since that postdates the break with Chiwere. So you wouldn't have to account for the /h/. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:53 PM Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. > > > > > Quick tyro question-- Is the leading ho- on (almost) every > second word of the list below the Hochunk equivalent of > the MVS locative prefix *o-, OP u-, 'in'? > > Thanks, > Rory > > > > > > "Henning Garvin" > m> cc: > Sent by: Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. > owner-siouan at lists.c > olorado.edu > > > 01/30/2004 11:03 AM > Please respond to > siouan > > > > > > > >In connection with mooska (Miner has mo'osga (moo'sga) 'dessert'), while a > >loan would be interesting, it is also possible to see this as a compound > >*maNaN-ska 'white earth'. If it were a *-ka nominalization of *maNaNs - > >perhaps a sound symbolism grade of *maNaNx(e) 'field', I think it would be > >expected to appear as *maNaNske, which it doesn't. In both these cases > >I'm also trying to make moo- into maNaN-, perhaps maNaN- 'earth'. For > >forms like moowe' 'to walk', or moo's^?ok 'hill, mound', moo'ga 'bank', > >moo'haj^a 'hard ground', moo'c^i 'cellar' this might work. The frequent > >initial accent in these forms is, like the mo sequence, a bit unusual. I > >wonder if they might not represent dialect variants. > > > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' > > mooci 'cellar, den' > > maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' > > mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' > > maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' > > moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' > > maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' > > mooska 'clearing or field' > > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' > > I asked these forms of my informants and this is what they were able to > tell > me. > > they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the > bank of a lake or any water body. > > moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean > > travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even > then they would rather say maNaN haja. > Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but > more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break > this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was > thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I > > was with didn't like that analyses. > > > > > Henning Garvin > Linguistic research > Ho-Chunk Nation Language Division > > _________________________________________________________________ > High-speed users?be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet > > Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 00:43:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:43:24 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: <002201c3e785$d1a34270$2bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Yes, and the leading h- is epenthetic, occurring only in WI/HC with these > initial forms. It's probably that, if we are seeing contracted forms with the > moo- words, contraction took place before epenthesis, since that postdates the > break with Chiwere. So you wouldn't have to account for the /h/. The epenthetic h's always disappear when something precedes them. Winnebago grammar apparently knows that this h is present only in initial contexts. As I recall both Lipkind and Marten comment on this. I don't remember Sussman or the sketch part of Marino well enough to remember if they also note the behavior. The examples of alternation that I remember from inflectional and derivational prefix morphology might be suspect of being inherited, but there are lots of examples with the locatives involving compounding in Miner and elsewhere, not to mention behavior with things like the indefinite article, and I suspect this alternation is simply best seen as productive. It's interesting that the speakers that Henning was working with were able to recover most of the fairly obscure (to me) moo < maNaN + (h)o examples, apparently quite easily, even though I think some could fairly be characterized as lexicalized. The examples I cited were all from Miner. Miner had a few more I didn't mention. I regret that potential loanword, too, alas, though I would have been happier with something more along the lines of (non-occurring) *mooskac^. From hhgarvin at hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 00:54:37 2004 From: hhgarvin at hotmail.com (Henning Garvin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:54:37 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > >So are the above actually occurring contractions of maaN- followed by a >morpheme >beginning with (h)o-? Or are they forms you constructed to try out with >speakers? These are all occurring contractions. I just had a hunch about the bear clan name, and then found these other examples. _________________________________________________________________ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 01:03:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:03:22 -0700 Subject: Epenthetic Initials and Problematic Initial h- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Yes. Winnebago has an epenthetic h on vowel-initial words, with certain > exceptions, ... One interesting postscript to epenthetic h is that the h with the first persons A1 ha, P1 hiN, A12 hiN, which behaves in Winnebago like one of the epenthetic h's, is also found in IO, which doesn't have epenthetic h otherwise. So these pronouns have h- in IO, but the locatives, etc., don't. In Dhegiha there is no h on these pronouns either, cf. OP A1 a, P1 aN (P1+dative = iN), A12 aN (A12+dative = iN). It's hard to tell if the h here is a reflex of *w in IO (and Wi?) or some sort of incipient epenthesis, though the former seems more plausible to me at the moment. The other more or less problematic h- in Siouan is the one that appears in 'day' in Wi, IO, and Dhegiha-less-OP, but is missing in OP and Dakotan. If I recall, this set is Wi haNaNp, IO haNaNwe (least sure of this one!), Os haN'pa, OP aN'ba, Da aNpA. The Da A ablauts, and is e before, e.g., =tu, as in aNpe'=tu. There's a similar h- in the indefinite/interrogative pronoun base *(h)a- where it occurs, e.g., OP anaN 'how many' vs. Os hanaN. I think there are traces of this ha- in Wi as well. The 'day' set is Chafe's example of PMS *rh (or was it *hr?), from the naN- prefix on 'day' in Southeastern and no doubt Iroquoian data I have forgotten. I'm not sure if that explains the h ~ nil alternation or not. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 05:22:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:22:17 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In support of the productivity of these forms: maNaN' in Miner On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' moo'we and howe' both in Miner Further afield, -we is cognate with Dhegiha *-phe, OP -he, as in z^ohe 'to wade', uhe 'to follow'. > mooci 'cellar, den' > maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' moo'c^i in Miner; hoc^i' in Lipkind > mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' > maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' horaj^e' in Miner > moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' > maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' moo's^?ok in Miner; and hos^?o'k 'hill' is, too > mooska 'clearing or field' > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' moo'sga and hosga' in Miner Miner writes sg for sk on principle. Under hosga' 'be open, clear (land)' he includes hosga'ij^a 'prairie'. Marino (p. 317) gives mosga 'prairie' > they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the > bank of a lake or any water body. Miner lists moo'ga. He doesn't have hoga', but IO has 'uka, ukaN' 'cliff, bank', which implies PWC *oka', the necessary underpinning for maNaN + *(h)oga', even though hoga' isn't attested anywhere as far as I know. Perhaps the word has fallen out of use entirely, or perhaps no one has stumbled on a speaker who recalls it. > moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean > travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even > then they would rather say maNaN haja. > > Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but > more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break > this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was > thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I > was with didn't like that analyses. Miner has moo'haj^a' and, of course, haj^a' 'to see'. He doesn't have any hypothetical hohaj^a'. There is maNaNha' 'mud' and j^aa 'frozen'. Moo'haj^a might be a rendition of maNaNha'j^a 'frozen mud' somewhat along the lines Henning suggests. Hypothetical moo'j^a from maNaN + hypothetical (h)oj^a makes more sense to me, too, though the form hoj^a isn't attested in Miner and we still haven't handled the -ha- in the middle. Miner also lists moo'kahi 'every year' and explains it as maNaN + hokahi 'every' under the latter. moosiN'niN Mosinee, WI hosiNniN' is 'be cold' (cf. OP usniN') Marino (p. 317) lists additional mo(o)- forms: modja' (mooj^a) 'something that grows in the ground', cf. ??? mogi'eje 'to scatter', mokie 'scattered', cf. gi?e 'scatter', horu?e' 'to sow', hoi?e' 'sow, scatter seeds' mopase 'bluff', cf. hopase' 'corner (in town)' moro 'shore', cf. ??? mowaxu 'pour on the ground', cf. howaxu' 'pour into' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Jan 31 05:53:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:53:51 -0700 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > The texts have udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 90:436.8), udhaN'da 'middle of the > > tribal circle' (JOD 90:601.17), niN'udhaN'da 'island' (JOD 91:39.2). I > > haven't detected any other uses of the root dhaNda. [...] > > Yes, I'm sure that's right. I looked up 'island' in the > Stabler/Swetland dictionary and came up with > > niu thoNta (i.e., ni-udhoNda) This is the Dhegiha 'island' set, it turns out. Os odhaNta 'center', niNo'dhaNta 'island' LaFlesche refers from the latter to niN'pase which he glosses 'land out of water'. Rankin lists (from Dorsey) Ks niba'se 'island in the regular channel' vs. ni(N)' oga'giye' ~ j^o'gagi'ye (j^e 'lake') 'island in an oxbow'. Qu ni(N)' doNtta', ni(N)' naNtta' 'island' The general form (where something else doesn't replace it) is *niN' + odhoNta, where the latter seems to be '(be) in the center'. The rest of Central Siouan seems to have *wit- 'island', with various noun-forming suffixes, e.g., Da wi'ta, IO j^eromiNj^e (j^e 'lake'), Ma wit-ka. > I'm guessing that the -da is an old positional or > nominalizer that occurs in conjunction with the > leading u-: > > u-dhaN-da > IN_CONTEXT-GLOB-THING > > which probably means a (globular) eminence standing out > upon an otherwise level surface. The more general sense of 'be round-shaped and located' isn't attested for udhaN, but various derivates are: udhaN' 'to hold, to take hold' ugdhaN' 'to put in; in between' I agree that -da is probably a postposition. Compare dha'tta 'left (handed)', Dha'tta(=)da 'Left Hand Side Clan', maybe originally 'to the left'. The -da form is cognate with Winnebago's locative (e=)j^a, Dakota =ta. The latter appears as e=k-ta with e=, and that form -k-ta accounts for the more common Dhegiha form =tta 'to(ward)' (*kt > tt). JEK From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Jan 31 18:35:37 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:35:37 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie'? Message-ID: John wrote: > The more general sense of 'be round-shaped and located' isn't attested for > udhaN, but various derivates are: > > udhaN' 'to hold, to take hold' > ugdhaN' 'to put in; in between' Yes, and in fact that's where our speaker took it when I asked her about udhaNda. She recognized this as a word, but had a little trouble at first remembering the meaning. Then she came up with the meaning of 'hold on tightly, for dear life'. The next day, Mark and I pursued this a little further with her, and we got: udhaN' 'to hold' udhaN'aNda 'to hold on tightly, for dear life' udhaN'dhaNda 'to keep holding on for dear life' (A1 - ubdhaN'dhaNda) udhaN'dhaN ga! 'Keep holding on!' 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? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 31 19:02:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:02:48 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: Note though that the semantics of the compounds is quite transparent except in the case of mooska 'plains, prairie', which makes the sudden jump from earth+in-white(spot) to 'plains'. It's at that point that I'd look for the influence of maaskwa, precisely 'plains, prairie'. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:22 PM Subject: RE: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. > In support of the productivity of these forms: > > maNaN' in Miner > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Henning Garvin wrote: > > moowe 'to walk, follow a path' > > maNaN + howe 'earth, ground + follow a path, a path' > > moo'we and howe' both in Miner > > Further afield, -we is cognate with Dhegiha *-phe, OP -he, as in z^ohe 'to > wade', uhe 'to follow'. > > > mooci 'cellar, den' > > maNaN + hoc^i 'earth, ground + dwelling, house' > > moo'c^i in Miner; hoc^i' in Lipkind > > > mooraje 'visits the earth (Bear Clan Name)' > > maNaN + horaje 'earth + visit' > > horaj^e' in Miner > > > moos^?ok 'small rounded hill, mound' > > maNaN + s^?ok 'earth, ground + something rounded, bumplike' > > moo's^?ok in Miner; and hos^?o'k 'hill' is, too > > > mooska 'clearing or field' > > maNaN + hoska 'earth + clearing or field' > > moo'sga and hosga' in Miner > > Miner writes sg for sk on principle. > > Under hosga' 'be open, clear (land)' he includes hosga'ij^a 'prairie'. > Marino (p. 317) gives mosga 'prairie' > > > they couldn't break down mooga, just telling me the entire word means the > > bank of a lake or any water body. > > Miner lists moo'ga. He doesn't have hoga', but IO has 'uka, ukaN' 'cliff, > bank', which implies PWC *oka', the necessary underpinning for maNaN + > *(h)oga', even though hoga' isn't attested anywhere as far as I know. > Perhaps the word has fallen out of use entirely, or perhaps no one has > stumbled on a speaker who recalls it. > > > moohaj^a didn't make sense to them as hard ground. They said it would mean > > travelling around the world, literally seeing other countries. But even > > then they would rather say maNaN haja. > > > > Hard ground could be mooja. It can be used to refer to hard ground, but > > more specifies a rather well delineated area of land. They didn't break > > this word down for me. maNaN + hoja didn't work well for them. I was > > thinking it could possibly be related to jaa 'be frozen' but the speakers I > > was with didn't like that analyses. > > Miner has moo'haj^a' and, of course, haj^a' 'to see'. He doesn't have any > hypothetical hohaj^a'. There is maNaNha' 'mud' and j^aa 'frozen'. > Moo'haj^a might be a rendition of maNaNha'j^a 'frozen mud' somewhat along > the lines Henning suggests. Hypothetical moo'j^a from maNaN + > hypothetical (h)oj^a makes more sense to me, too, though the form hoj^a > isn't attested in Miner and we still haven't handled the -ha- in the > middle. > > Miner also lists > > moo'kahi 'every year' and explains it as maNaN + hokahi 'every' under the > latter. > > moosiN'niN Mosinee, WI hosiNniN' is 'be cold' (cf. OP usniN') > > Marino (p. 317) lists additional mo(o)- forms: > > modja' (mooj^a) 'something that grows in the ground', cf. ??? > mogi'eje 'to scatter', mokie 'scattered', cf. gi?e 'scatter', horu?e' 'to > sow', hoi?e' 'sow, scatter seeds' > mopase 'bluff', cf. hopase' 'corner (in town)' > moro 'shore', cf. ??? > mowaxu 'pour on the ground', cf. howaxu' 'pour into' > > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Jan 31 18:57:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:57:06 -0600 Subject: Word for 'prairie' in Hochunk. Message-ID: > It's interesting that the speakers that Henning was working with were able > to recover most of the fairly obscure (to me) moo < maNaN + (h)o examples, > apparently quite easily, even though I think some could fairly be > characterized as lexicalized. Yeah, I had never heard of any instance of HoChaNk losing vowel nasalization. It's quite common, especially for /oN/ in Kaw. But I suppose it makes sense with the very common V1+V2 --> V2 Siouan phonological process. Although the source of hooska 'clearing' deserves a little more study, the analysis as 'white (spot) in it' makes pretty good sense. I still have a serious semantics problem with mooska then meaning 'plains, prairie' though. It would make sense if it meant 'clearing' or 'white spot of ground' or the like, but it only really makes sense as 'plains, prairie' with Algonquian influence. If we're not dealing with an outright loanword that has been folk etymologized, I'm convinced we're dealing at least with what's called a "loan blend". I think it's Algonquian that is providing the extended semantics here. Or maybe not. Anyway, it's all part of the sport of linguistics. Bob