From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 2 22:08:25 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 17:08:25 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more Message-ID: Since I was the author of the original paper on the Illinois borrowing of Ohio Valley Siouan 'eight', I suppose I should weigh in on this thread. In addition to the paper in IJAL, there is a little more information that bears on the question. Virginia Siouan. Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Although there is no further reference to this tribe, it seems clear that they were Siouan, since maNiN' ~ moNniN' is Tutelo, and indeed common Siouan, for 'water' while itâ is 'great, big', with an equally good Siouan pedigree. Apparently the trip to the Monytons involved going West over the mountains. The river they lived on is identified as the Kanawha, in WV. Both the Saponi and Occaneechee (also Akenatzy and other spelling variants) are mentioned several accounts from the 1670's. According to John Lederer (1670), Thomas Batts and Robert Fallam (1671) and James Needham and Gabriel Arthur (1673), the Saponies lived in the western part of Virginia in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Tutelos were some distance further to the west, and the Occaneechee to the southwest. Between 1673 and 1700 both tribes had joined the Occaneechees. Their later movements are of no consequence to us here. Other Ohio Valley Siouan. The Biloxis are not attested for certain before their 1699 location near Pascagoula. There is one reference to what was possibly Biloxi up in central Alabama at an earlier time. The Ofo were supposedly located on the Ohio River under their alias, the Mosopelea. They were traced down the Ohio and then the Mississippi by Swanton's research. They took refuge among the Taensa and later both groups, along with the Koroa, joined the Tunica, where Swanton visited them in 1907. The name Mosopelea gives rise to two separate terms for the Ofo. Bearing in mind the attested sound change by which Ofo and Biloxi lost all lexeme-initial labial sonorants, /m/ and /w/ and the change by which Common Siouan *s > /f/ in Ofo, we can derive the following names: moso (pelea) oso ofo ... the name by which they were known by Muskogean-speaking tribes who folk-etymologized it as /ofi/ 'dog' in Choctaw/Chickasaw. Also ... mosope (lea) ouspe (and several more of Swanton's spelling variants) us pe ushpe ... which is the term by which the Tunica called them during Swanton's visit. Both terms, given known sound changes, tend to confirm Swanton's identification with the Mosopelea of the upper Ohio Valley in proto-historic times. So we pretty clearly have Virginia Siouan tribes on the Kanawha R. and very likely on the Ohio R. in the 17th century. Chiwere (Ioway), on the other hand, lacks not only the putative source-word for 'eight'; it also lacks any trace of the companion term for 'seven'. So even if we accept the idea that "might have been" cognates can be accepted into evidence, the "might have been" use of a prefix *pha:- or *phe:- used to form numbers 7 and 8 of the second quine is also totally lacking. Nor do we find any trace of it in Winnebago. So I stand by my Ohio Valley Siouan/Illinois Algonquian contact story. (All the above is part of a paper I did at AAA in 1980. It's too long to recapitulate here and was precomputer, so all I have is a typescript.) Bob ----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, David Costa wrote: > It's really only one form in Tutelo (or whatever). The multiplicy of > forms is in the ears of the beholder and in MI. > > > As I recall, Bob Rankin opted for Tutelo over Ofo partly because > > > he thought Tutelo l more like MI r or n than Ofo t (which might have been > > > rather d-like). I think there are several attested Tutelo variants just as there are several in MI. Bob From EvolPub at aol.com Mon May 3 02:43:45 2004 From: EvolPub at aol.com (Tony Schiavo) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:43:45 EDT Subject: Fwd: Tutelo & Miami Message-ID: I was forwarded your discussion about Tutelo in the Ohio Valley area. My apologies if I'm going over old ground here; I tuned in late and may have missed the good stuff. In the 1674 letter of Abraham Wood describing the Needham-Arthur expedition over the Alleghenies, there's the following indication that Tutelo-Saponi was spoken along the Kanawha: "Now ye king must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his frends, mony signifying water and ton great in theire language." I once thought these Monetons may have been a displaced remnant--however, I'm not aware of any evidence that the Iroquois were attacking the Tutelo prior to the displacement of the Susquehannock around 1674-5. They were however, raiding on the Ohio years earlier. If anything, tribes would have been fleeing from the Ohio Valley, not into it from the Piedmont which seems to have been relatively untouched at this date. This may have been covered by Huberto Dixon, but there's a tradition reported around 1845 in the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser as follows: "The Indians hereabouts believe that a small remnant of the Eries still exist beyond the Mississippi. The small tribe known as the Quapaws in that region, are also believed to be remains of the Kaukwaus, the allies of the Eries." Though this may well be a late folk etymology, it looks plausible. (Lahontan says because Iroquoian lacked labials French "Ponchartrain" was pronounced "Conchartrain"). Interestingly the Quapaw apparently used longhouse dwellings (Bonnie McEwan "Indians of the Greater Southeast", p. 185.)--something I'd like to do a bit homework on. Dixon's paper on Siouan in the Ohio Valley was mentioned--would someone kindly provide the reference for that? -Claudio Salvucci Evolution Publishing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 3 13:20:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 07:20:04 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > John Koontz: > > What is the date of the Indiana Miami and Wea? My understanding is that > > at present MI communities in Oklahoma crosscut the Miami vs. Illinois > > distinction. In other words, only the Indiana Miami and Wea communities > > would be Miami without Illinois population infusions? However, ... in her > > atlas suggests ... I had meant to hold this and post it after filling in the blanks. I accidentally posted it instead. The last sentence was supposed to read "However, Helen Hornbeck Tanner, in her Atalas of Great Lakes Indian History, suggests ..." However, I was misremembering the source, which is actually Charles Callender's article Miami in HBNAI, Vol. 15, p. 687. "In 1846 the army forcibly removed the Miami from Indiana, although about half the tribe evaded the troops. Resettled in Kansas, they continued to decline. Their catastrophic loss of population after removal may parly reflect a surreptitious movement back to Indiana, although they also received increments from that area. The Kansas group eventually moved to northeast Oklahoma, where int he 1870s they joined the confederacy that the Wea and PIankashaw had already established with the Peoria." In other words, there might be mechanisms by which Illinois influence could be conveyed to Indiana Miami. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 3 15:20:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:20:20 -0600 Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king > must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony > signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne > situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and > flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Would the tide ebb and flow in the Kanawha or Ohio? This is just a matter of curiosity, since, even if it wouldn't, there's no obvious alternative, and I'm certainly not questioning the existence of location of the Moneton on this or any other basis. I assume the interest of tides to the English at this period relates to the possibility of finding an outlet to the sea across the Appalachians. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon May 3 15:41:30 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:41:30 -0500 Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > Would the tide ebb and flow in the Kanawha or Ohio? Lunar tides certainly wouldn't (detectably, at least), but the word 'tide' is also used for fluctuations in river-level caused by variations in precip in the drainage-basin; e.g., Thomas Jefferson "In the Summer months the boats always hold themselves in readiness [on the river] to catch the accidental tides from showers of rain." Alan From rankin at ku.edu Mon May 3 16:43:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:43:10 -0500 Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: I think they're pretty much established from context as having been on the Kanawha. I agree with Alan that 'tide' had a broader usage in several senses in colonial times when water transportation was more common. It took me aback for a moment too though. I see another contributor came up with the same quotation about the Monytons. My citation of Tutelo /maNiN'/ should read /maNniN'/. Sorry 'bout the typo. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:20 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king > must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony > signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne > situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and > flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Would the tide ebb and flow in the Kanawha or Ohio? This is just a matter of curiosity, since, even if it wouldn't, there's no obvious alternative, and I'm certainly not questioning the existence of location of the Moneton on this or any other basis. I assume the interest of tides to the English at this period relates to the possibility of finding an outlet to the sea across the Appalachians. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 4 06:24:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 00:24:16 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king > must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony > signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne > situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and > flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Although there is no > further reference to this tribe, it seems clear that they were Siouan, > since maNiN' ~ moNniN' is Tutelo, and indeed common Siouan, for 'water' > while itâ is 'great, big', with an equally good Siouan pedigree. > Apparently the trip to the Monytons involved going West over the > mountains. The river they lived on is identified as the Kanawha, in WV. Since I know the old Northwest area like the back of my head, I thought I'd do a little looking at a map before commenting on the issue of the proximity of Miami-Illinois and Tutelo or Ioway-Otoe. I've attached this somewhat arbitrarily to Bob's reference placing the Moneton town on the Kanawha. The Kanawha comes out of southwest Virgina and runs across the bottom half of West Virginia to join the Ohio. I don't really have any problem with this being a pointer to the path of the Tutelo-related groups eastward or an indicater that they were on both sides of the Appalachians and perhaps new east of it at contact. The Tutelo language certainly didn't originate in Virginia. It can only have moved there. The only question is when and where they might have been at various points before that. As I understand Michael, the Miami-Illinois are thought to have moved west from the Maumee River, which runs east into Lake Eirie at about the Michigan line, i.e., at Toledo, Ohio. The Ioway - and so a linguist presumes, the whole Ioway-Otoe-Missouria complex - are thought to have been associated with the Oneota Orr Focus - a rather fuzzy older subdivision of Oneota which turns out to refer generally to the area east and west of the Mississippi and north and south of the Minnesota-Iowa line. Archaeologists don't think quite the same way about lingistic connections that linguists do and spread things even further by assuming somewhat implausibly that the Ioway-Otoe-Missouria division goes back to 1000 AD or earlier and assinging Otoe and Missouria to other divisions of Oneota further west and south. It's not that unlikely that there was an Ioway-Otoe-Missouria variant of Mississippi Valley Siouan in 1000 AD with multiple political subdivisions, of course. But I don't really see the modern divisions as say, 600 years old at contact. Some merging and redividing over time seems more likely. Ioway-Otoe-Missouri, of course, is extremely close to Winnebago, which Michael would like to place in the Chicago area, though there are a number of competing versions and anti-versions of Winnebago origins. In general there is a recent tendency to see Illinois as full of Oneota and therefore possibly Mississippi Valley Siouan groups after about 1400. One presumes these groups spoke something like Ioway-Otoe, or Winnebago, or Dhegiha, and possibly the antecedents of some of these divisions of MVS. With that set of geographical observations made, I would like to point out that the mouth of the Maumee (Toledo) is somewhat closer to Chicago than it is to the mouth of the Kanawha. There's another problem, too, which is that southern Ohio, including the mouth of the Kanawha, is within the area of the Ft. Ancient Culture, which is often associated with Shawnee. I believe Shawnee isn't (currently) reported to exhibit any Tutelo influence, and it would seem to be in the way of the most direct sort of Tutelo-Illinois interactions. Of course, if Ft. Ancient is actually Tutelo, things would be more convenient. Or if the Tutelo had actually spread south from western Pennsylvania into West Virginia and western Virginia, rather than west from southern Ohio. Not that Pittsburg is really any closer to Toledo than Toledo is to Chicago. I think that the Tutelo are sometimes associated with the Monongahela Culture, which was located roughly in western Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. This, of course, is the area where were are more or less reduced to a collection of placenames (Shawnee, Siouan, and ???) as far as pre-contact inhabitants and a depopulated wilderness by the time Europeans were passing through the area. I have never read any literature directly on Monongahela. I have impression it exists to be assigned irrelevant materials not belonging to a culture from a surrounding area. It doesn't help a whole lot to see early Ioway-Otoe as confined west of the Mississippi if Illinois is still mainly Siouan, unless perhaps this Siouan is Dhegiha. If it's Winnebago or "unidentified," then we have to wonder how they said 'eight'. Modern Winnebago doesn't use anything relevant, but Illinois is a lot of space, and we might expect some variation over a Winnebago that filled even northern Illinois. If the presumed Siouan speakers in Illinois were Tutelo, then we have a fairly impressive migration on our hands. Not for a small group, of course, but certainly for a fairly large and influential one, and we have to ask why they travelled the direction they would seem to have in the 1400-1650 time span. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 13:12:25 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:12:25 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Quoting "R. Rankin" : > > Virginia Siouan. Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, > "Now > ye king must goe to give ye monetons > (Alvord > and Bidgood, 1912, 221) > it seems clear that they were Siouan, since maNiN' ~ moNniN' is Tutelo, and > indeed common Siouan, for 'water' while itâ is 'great, big', with an equally > good Siouan pedigree. Apparently the trip to the Monytons involved going > West > over the mountains. The river they lived on is identified as the Kanawha, > in > WV. > > > >> The Ofo were supposedly located on the Ohio River under their alias, the > Mosopelea. They were traced down the Ohio and then the Mississippi by > Swanton's > research. They took refuge among the Taensa and later both groups, along > with > the Koroa, joined the Tunica, where Swanton visited them in 1907. The name > Mosopelea gives rise to two separate terms for the Ofo. Bearing in mind the > attested sound change by which Ofo and Biloxi lost all lexeme-initial labial > sonorants, /m/ and /w/ and the change by which Common Siouan *s > /f/ in Ofo, > we > can derive the following names: > > > > moso (pelea) > > oso > > ofo > > > > ... the name by which they were known by Muskogean-speaking tribes who > folk-etymologized it as /ofi/ 'dog' in Choctaw/Chickasaw. Also ... > > > > mosope (lea) > > ouspe (and several more of Swanton's spelling variants) > > us pe > > ushpe > > > > ... which is the term by which the Tunica called them during Swanton's > visit. This is curious, but I find this analysis far-fetched. Plus, what is that -lea, and what happened to it? > > > > Both terms, given known sound changes, tend to confirm Swanton's > identification > with the Mosopelea of the upper Ohio Valley in proto-historic times. > > > > So we pretty clearly have Virginia Siouan tribes on the Kanawha R. and very > likely on the Ohio R. in the 17th century. I don't doubt this. > > >> > > So I stand by my Ohio Valley Siouan/Illinois Algonquian contact story. > > > > (All the above is part of a paper I did at AAA in 1980. It's too long to > recapitulate here and was precomputer, so all I have is a typescript.) > > > > Bob > I found the identification of "Moneton" very interesting and using The linguistic analysis of "Mosopelea" does not hold water. One of the problems is that Bob based his analysis on a La Sallian form of the ethnonym "Mosopelea" (La Salle was a hopeless monolingual) and failed to go back to the original recording/spelling of the name. Before looking at what "Mosopelea" is, let's look at what it is (also) not: Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin’s explanation that represents Shawnee /m?$- ‘big’ plus /peleewa/‘turkey’ is either whimsical or forced. Such an analysis simply does not stand up to either historical or philological scrutiny. In her eagerness to designate the term Shawnee, the historian failed to realize that the demonym first came from the plume of Jacques Marquette in 1673--and this is critical to the analysis of the term- and it appeared subsequently on the maps describing the Mississippi voyage that were based on Jolliet’s intelligence—and there is no evidence that either Marquette or Jolliet ever met a Shawnee Indian. If they did, neither would have been able to communicate with himher since Marquette and Jolliet could not speak Shawnee. Even though Shawnee is an Algonquian language, it is profoundly different from and mutually unintelligible with the six Algonquian languages that Marquette knew. Now, Marquette’s early relation of 1669-70, written from the Mission du Saint-Esprit at Chaquamegon on the south shore of Lake Superior, does speak of a visit that the Illinois had received earlier in their own country from some Shawnee. In fact, the Illinois boy from whom Marquette learned the Illinois language had witnessed that very visit. However, Marquette did not meet any Shawnee in his lifetime and Jolliet himself would have obtained information about the Mosopelea from the Illinois, not from the Shawnee. Of course, these facts do not imply that the people known as the Mosopelea were not Shawnee speakers; they simply show that the historically recorded etymon did not come from the Shawnee language. Given the earliest recording of this ethnonym, which is (not "Mosopelea") from Marquette’s map of the Mississippi; given the year the name was coined, 1673, a time well before any contact between Frenchmen and Shawnee had occurred—or indeed could occur; given the fact that the only Mississippi valley language Marquette spoke was Miami-Illinois; and above all, given the internal linguistic evidence provided by the word itself, presented below, is no doubt a Miami-Illinois ethnonym. Linguistically speaking, Marquette’s consists of two elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/‘deer’, phonetic [moonswa]~ [moonzwa]. This term not only appears in Marquette’s . The French- Illinois dictionary of the missionary Antoine-Robert Le Boullenger (after 1719) also has it and spells it , and in the Illinois-French dictionary (around the turn of the 18th century), commonly attributed to Jacques Gravier, we have the form that confirms this analysis: . These historical transcriptions of clearly exhibit the commonly occurring phenomenon of sibilant prenasalization, represented in this term by orthographic <-ns->. Among the Great Lakes Algonquian languages this phonological event is for all intents and purposes unique to Miami-Illinois. In the Miami-Illinois language this prenasalization, as well as the optional voicing in Old Illinois of /-s-/ to [z], are non-contrastive features that ultimately derive from the preceding /m/. This voicing of /s/ to [z] shows up historically in Minet’s La Salle-based spelling . <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- Illinois /pile:wa/‘turkey’. The /-w-/, present in the independent word for “turkey,” does not occur in the composite term because in Miami-Illinois at the phonetic level, trisyllabic words with a short first vowel such as /pileewa/ lose the /-w-/ when prefixed. This can be illustrated , in fact, with another “turkey”-related word from the same language, the word for the domestic turkey, which also loses /-w-/: [waapipilia].(As one might expect, the term for the domestic turkey literally means “white turkey”.) Therefore, for our purposes, what these spellings perfectly reflect is the same phonological reality as that found in Marquette’s . The underlying /pileewa/of , just as in /waapipilia/, is no longer trisyllabic and thus does not evince /-w-/ in the actual, spoken form of this place-name. Of course, determining what language comes from and what the ethnonym signifies is a rather simple affair when compared to the daunting challenge of determining who the Mosopelea were. In truth, the only thing we know for certain about the ethnic identity of these people is that they were originally a middle Ohio Valley population whose lives were shattered in the mid-1600s and reduced to just a few individuals by the Iroquois. That is obviously not much to go on. Even though it is not the intent of this work to explore in depth the question of this group’s identity, a few ideas that have emerged from our onomastic research merit a brief mention. The Mosopelea could have been Shawnee speakers, as Wheeler-Voegelin suggested, in spite of the fact that her hypothesis rests partially on her mistaken belief that where they appear on Marquette’s map, the Shawnee appear on the Franquelin-Jolliet map titled ‘Nouuelle Decouverte de Plusieurs Nations Dans la Nouuelle France en L'annee 1673-1674’ and on Randin’s chart. On the Franquelin-Jolliet map, however, the Shawnee are in fact living up a southern tributary of the lower Ohio later identified cartographically as the “River of the Shawnee”; and on the same map the Mosopelea are located below the Arkansas River opposite the Taensa. On Marquette’s chart, the are just below the mouth of the Ohio on the east bank of the Mississippi. Historical accounts agree that the Mosopelea fled south out of the Ohio Valley when the Iroquois invaded the region in the mid-1600s. Therefore, since we know that the Shawnee had long established connections with southern tribes, the Taensa for example, it is not impossible that the Mosopelea were Shawnee. Additional observations by Wheeler-Voegelin with respect to the Mosopelea are noteworthy. Especially attractive is her suggestion that they were the Indians described on the Manitoumie maps as having guns, and noted by Marquette as being at war with the Quapaw. Furthermore, her statement that some Seneca had told LaSalle in 1668-69 that the Mosopelea were Shawnee is also curious. In fact, this is perhaps the best part of her theory. I would agree her when she dismisses Swanton’s claim that the Mosopelea were Ofo, for there is no ethno-historical evidence of this or other Siouan participation in the region bracketed by the so-called Fort Ancient Tradition of the middle Ohio valley, an area which was home to the proto-historic Mosopelea. Of course, at the same time, no one has yet identified the late prehistoric Ohio valley Siouans archaeologically. At this point, I could tentatively agree with Wheeler-Voeglin’s hypothesis and further propose that Marquette’s may refer to either the Deer and Turkey clans of the Shawnee or the Deer band/moietie of the Turkey clan of the Shawnee. Even so, this theory concerning the ethnic identification of the Mosopolea requires additional and convincing support. (Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin's ideas are in "Ethnohistory of Indian Use and Occupation in Ohio and Indiana Prior to 1795, in David Agee Horr, ed., American Indian Ethnohistory/North Central and Northeastern Indiana, 2 vols. (New York and London: Garland, 1974), volume 1, around pages 44-52.) Michael From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 13:20:39 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:20:39 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <1083676345.409796b9d9457@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 May 2004 mmccaffe at indiana.edu wrote: This should read: ..."Moneton" very interesting and useful. The linguistic..." > > > I found the identification of "Moneton" very interesting and using The > linguistic analysis of "Mosopelea" does not hold water. I blame this oversight on the departure of Bob Edwards from "Morning Edition". Michael From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue May 4 13:48:04 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:48:04 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <1083676345.409796b9d9457@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Michael wrote: > Linguistically speaking, Marquette’s consists of two > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/‘deer’, phonetic [moonswa]~ > [moonzwa]. ... > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > Illinois /pile:wa/‘turkey’. Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 14:01:36 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:01:36 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <40979F14.9070308@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Alan, Yeah, no doubt it's unusual. In fact, Bob joked a couple of years ago about this and suggested that it reminded him of a jackalope. My sense is that it may not even be one word but two. It's hard to say, since the -8- could stand for /-wa/ or the contraction /-o(o)/. However, to someone who knows Miami-Illinois and the the historical sources of that language, jumps out as clearly as, say, "Jacksonsville" would to a speaker of English. Michael On Tue, 4 May 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > Michael wrote: > > > Linguistically speaking, Marquette�s consists of two > > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/�deer�, phonetic [moonswa]~ > > [moonzwa]. > ... > > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > > Illinois /pile:wa/�turkey�. > > Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? > > Alan > > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue May 4 14:03:57 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:03:57 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more Message-ID: No, it's the variety of Jackalope that lived on the Ohio River in proto-historic times. Attested from fossil remains of the horns and large fan tail of the male of the species. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Hartley" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:48 AM Subject: Re: 'eight' some more > Michael wrote: > > > Linguistically speaking, Marquette’s consists of two > > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/‘deer’, phonetic [moonswa]~ > > [moonzwa]. > ... > > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > > Illinois /pile:wa/‘turkey’. > > Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? > > Alan > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 14:10:41 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:10:41 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <004d01c431e0$b764fa20$10b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Bob's right. In fact, a recent entire specimen, perfectly preserved, has been excavated at Big Bone Lick. On Tue, 4 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > No, it's the variety of Jackalope that lived on the Ohio River in proto-historic > times. Attested from fossil remains of the horns and large fan tail of the male > of the species. > > :-) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Hartley" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: 'eight' some more > > > > Michael wrote: > > > > > Linguistically speaking, Marquette�s consists of two > > > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/�deer�, phonetic > [moonswa]~ > > > [moonzwa]. > > ... > > > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > > > Illinois /pile:wa/�turkey�. > > > > Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? > > > > Alan > > > > > > > "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." -Groucho Marx "When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." -Gracie Allen From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 4 15:26:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:26:02 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > However, to someone who knows Miami-Illinois and the the historical > sources of that language, jumps out as clearly as, say, > "Jacksonsville" would to a speaker of English. Or perhaps a more apt comparison would be Jackalopeville. However, I don't think Bob is necessarily claiming that the name is Siouan, only that the Ofo were answering it to it and variants of it, to the extent that at the turn of the nineteenth century they were using a version that had been put through characteristically Ofo sound changes. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 4 15:27:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:27:34 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Bob's right. In fact, a recent entire specimen, perfectly preserved, has > been excavated at Big Bone Lick. I suppose it's in the museum next to the cat with a squash vine twining around it? From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue May 4 15:46:12 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:46:12 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > the Ofo were answering it to it and variants of it Too many it's. Alan From rankin at ku.edu Tue May 4 16:06:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:06:46 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more Message-ID: @!#$%&, I knew that if I rejoined this thread I'd have to retype my whole 1980 paper. :-) OK, here is the progression reproduced from Swanton et al. I'm sure we've been thru this before, but I can't remember when. Start with: mosopelea in various spellings as Michael points out. On the Ohio R. 1. SIOUAN LANGUAGES VARIABLY TRANSFER NASALITY OFF THE V IN /wVN/ sequences. 2. BILOXI AND OFO LOSE INITIAL *m- AND *w-. (there are many noun examples) ouispe Iberville 1699 oussipe Penicaut 1700 ounspik Gravier 1700 onspee LaHarpe 1722 ouesperie Coxe 1741 (some of these forms account for the missing original -lea ending) ouespere Coxe 1741 u$pi Swanton 1909 (Tunica for the Ofo) u$pie Swanton 1912 Ofo changes /s/ to /f/ fairly late, because Ossogoula is also attested for them (presumably from Muskogean speakers, given the -goula ending). There's more, but I've gotta run to class now. Maybe I should redo the paper for the Siouan conference. Anyhow, I have problems with moose-turkey as an ethnonym even if they are possible clan names. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:26 AM Subject: Re: 'eight' some more > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > However, to someone who knows Miami-Illinois and the the historical > > sources of that language, jumps out as clearly as, say, > > "Jacksonsville" would to a speaker of English. > > Or perhaps a more apt comparison would be Jackalopeville. > > However, I don't think Bob is necessarily claiming that the name is > Siouan, only that the Ofo were answering it to it and variants of it, to > the extent that at the turn of the nineteenth century they were using a > version that had been put through characteristically Ofo sound changes. > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue May 4 18:30:03 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:30:03 +0100 Subject: travel to Wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 28/4/04 2:45 am, "Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC" wrote: > > Yes, I'll keep a list of arrival times and driving routes and such, as > people let me know their plans, and in a few weeks we can match riders up > with cars. So far we've got more ride offers (John/David and Rory) than > ridees (Carolyn), but a couple of other people have mentioned flying > without naming specific times, so there may be more rides wanted as > everyone's plans get finalized. > > Keep those paper titles coming... I've heard from a dozen or so people so > far, with lots of fascinating paper topics! > > Best, > Catherine > > > > OK, thanks David, I'll continue to coordinate through/with Catherine. > Probably most folks haven't made firm plans yet. I'm surprised at myself to > be this early. > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > > We need to be sure to coordinate this. I'm going to be driving and John > will be my passenger, but we probably won't get to eastern Nebraska until > toward evening. Catherine, I think you should collect a list of people > and arrival times and see if you need help with transportation. I'd be > happy to do an airport run if I'm there in time. Carolyn, you better make > firm arrangements with Catherine rather than with me or John. > > Best to all, > David > > > > > Dear Catherine and those concerned I'm coming in to Sioux City at 18.20 on the 8th of May And leaving on the 13th of May from Sioux City at 16.45. I will have a car. Bruce Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 04:47:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 22:47:01 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Chiwere (Ioway), on the other hand, lacks not only the putative > source-word for 'eight'; it also lacks any trace of the companion term > for 'seven'. This is quite true, IO and Winnebago as attested both lack not only all trace of a *hpa- or *hpe-based 'eight' term, but also all trace of a comparably based companion term for 'seven'. On the other hand, so do Tutelo and Ofo, right? The only languages with companion 'seven' and 'eight' terms are Omaha-Ponca, Kaw, and Quapaw (with *hpe-forms) and Biloxi, which has an idosyncratic construction based on (a)hudi, which Dorsey (or Swanton?) explain as "on the other hand?" It might also be '... (more) come'. Osage lacks the 'eight' form typical in Dhegiha, having replaced it with hki'etoNpa, which looks like a sort of reciprocal of 'four'. The old word hpedhabriN was "archaic" in LaFlesche's time. The forms from my earlier posting, perhaps open to some corrections, are repeated below: Tu Bi Of 'two' noNoN'paa noN'pa nuN'pha 'three' laa'ni(N) da'ni(N) ta'ni(N) 'seven' saakoo'miNiN noN'pahudi fa'kumi(N) 'eight' palaa'ni(N) dan'hudi' pa'tani(N) Te OP IO Wi 'two' nuN'pa naNba' nuN(uN)'we nuNuN'p 'three' ya'mni(N) dha'bdhiN da(a)'i daani' 'seven' s^ako'wiN ppe'dhaNba sa(a)'hmaN s^aagoo'wiN 'eight' s^aglo'gha ppe'dhabdhiN greeraa'briN harumaN'k Things in Mandan and Crow-Hidatsa, as I recall it, are quite different. The reconstructions supported by these forms are: 'two' *nuNuN'pa 'three' *raa'priN 'seven' *s^aako'wiN 'eight' ??? In IO 'seven' looks like it comes from *s^aakwaN (= *s^aak + waN ?), which, if *s^aakowiN is essentially *s^aak(V) + owiN, might be some sort of analogical revision of it. Forms like -wiN and -waN suggest 'one', of course, though it's not clear to me what 'one' might be in connection with 'seven'. As I mentioned before in passing, since Winnebago usually agrees closely with IO in lexical shifts like this, Winnebago s^aagoo'wiN seems so close to the reconstructed form as attested in Dakotan that I rather wonder if might even be a Dakotan loan. The interesting thing to notice about Tutelo's and Ofo's lack of a companion 'seven' term is that they have instead reflexes of the non-companionate *s^aako'wiN. One might suppose that the 'eight' form or forms develop first and the companion 'seven' forms are created by analogy with them, but it seems to me more likely that the non-companionate and some form of companionate forms existed in parallel, and that the companionate series involved a complete set of forms for 'six' to 'nine' or even 'ten'. Or one might imagine for 'ten' in the companionate series a 'two fives' form like *saa'ptaN nuN'pa. This is entirely hypothetical, of course; no companion forms for other than 'seven' and 'eight' are attested and no 'two fives' form, either, though, as we have seen, Osage as a sort of 'pair of fours' form for 'eight' and Omaha-Ponca use a 'two sixes' form for 'twelve' instead of the regular agdhiN' + N 'sitting on it + N' teen form. The 'two Ns' construction recurs in Siouan, though it always looks quite secondary. Also interesting in light of Osage *hkieto'pa 'eight' is P(MV)S *kyee'praN 'ten'. Perhaps *kyee'- is a contraction of *hki-e-, though *praN doesn't look like *saa'ptaN 'five' at all and this sort of contraction doesn't seem especially likely to me at the moment. If the companionate and non-companionate 'higher digits' existed in parallel, then the present series in many cases are a mixture of the two sets, with some substitutions of new forms, especially alternate companionate forms and descriptive innovations for 'nine'. It might be more proper to refer to the non-companionate and companionate series as 'decimal' and 'quinary'. The companionate or quinary terms might also be essentially descriptions of hand motions in counting. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 08:00:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 02:00:37 -0600 Subject: Medial *pr Message-ID: This is long and those not interested in historical phonology (or perhaps numerals) may wish to skip it. I thought I'd come back to the issue of medial *pr in IO, since from my point of view the two main obstacles to a hypothesis of MI paraare ~ palaani < Pre-Chiwere **phataaniN are (1) that the l in Tutelo *p(h)alaaniN is a better match for MI l ~ r, even if Pre-Chiwere /t/ was as d-like as modern IO /t/ (usually written "d"), and (2) I can't be absolutely positive that the "br" in attested IO gree'raabriN is non-native. Of course, in the first case MI l ~ r is also not a very good match for Ofo's t in pata'ni(N), either. (Ofo, not Otoe.) Only Tutelo really works as far as attested forms, and, of course, an attested form, like a bird in the hand, is an attractive option. Defence attorneys can appeal to hypothetical alternate murderers unknown in explaining a corpse, but you can't convict a hypothetical murderer, and perhaps one shouldn't try to etymologize on a basis of a hypothetical etymon. I understand the reluctance of folks to believe in a hypothetical IO or IO-like 'eight' along the lines of *phadaaniN, especially if I can't be totally convincing that the -raabriN part of IO gree'raabriN 'eight' is alien. So let me return to contention number one, which is just that -raabriN is a very odd-looking form of PS *raa'priN 'three' to find in IO. If you don't believe that, you're not going to believe that a hypothetical earlier *pha'daaniN or *phe'daaniN or even *gree'daaniN would be a more likely form, and you're not going to believe that any of these forms might have existed to conceivable influence MI. I hope it will be clear that you can believe that -raabriN stands out like a sore thumb in IO without getting into the question of where MI 'eight' comes from at all. Point one is simply that IO 'three' is *not* *raa'briN. It is daa'niN. To be more accurate, it is [daaiN], with /n/ as [] (enye) before a front vowel. Moreover, Winnebago 'three' is not *raapiN'niN, but daaniN', with a parallel development. These forms that do *not* occur are what would happen if PS *raa'priN 'three' developed as expected, or at least if it developed in the most obvious way. Two things happen to prevent this. One is that the initial *r becomes *R and *R becomes d ~ j^ in IO and d in Winnebago. It's *R, not *t, because, though *t becomes d ~ j^ in IO, too, and is indistinguishable from *R there, in Winnebago *t becomes invariant j^ (or c^in final position), which is quite distinguishable from *R. Winnebago daaniN' 'three' (and not *j^aaniN') implies PS *Raa'niN 'three' (and not *taa'niN), and the same PS form *Raa'niN can also account for IO daa'niN. The second thing that happens tends to explain the first. This is the substitution of medial n for medial *pr. In fact, what happens is that *pr in the middle of 'three' becomes *R, too, and that *R looks like n before nasal vowels. In other words, Winnebago and IO 'three' are from *raa'priN via an intermediate form *Raa'RiN. While the shift of initial *r to *R is unexpected and irregular, the shift of medial *pr to *R is probably entirely regular. I say this because a number of other *pr in Winnebago and IO have taken this route. In particular, this happens to *pr in noun initials and to *pr where it occurs in the first persons of *r-stem verbs. Some sets: PMV Te OP IO Wi HAND *ru- y dhi- ru- ~ ri- ru- 'tongue' *ree'Si c^hez^i' dhe(e)'ze re(e)'dhe reezi' 'uncle' *(i)Re'ki lek(s^i') (i)ne'gi ij^e'ga dee'g(a) 'male' *pro'(ka) bloka' nu(u)'(ga) doo'ge (c^he)do'(k) A1+r... *p-r... b-l... b-dh... (ha)-d... d... 'flat' *pra's(ka) blas(ka') bdha's(ka) bra'(ke) para's S = fricative showing multipel grades, e.g., *s and *s^. In these sets: - HAND ru- is the familiar hand or pushing instrumental, with a well-behaved *r. - 'tongue' *ree'Si, shows initial *r in a body part noun, a context where Dakotan (Teton) c^h reflects *y instead of *r, a development in many Dakotan body part nouns. In the other stocks *r develops as *r would normally. Conceivably the noun is really *yee'Si and *y > *r between third person possessor *i- (etc.) and the following noun. This is not clear. - 'uncle' (mother's brother) *i-Re'ki shows *R. Dakotan (Teton) l, OP n before an oral vowel, and Winnebago d that doesn't become j^ are the particular marks of this correspondence. In other MV Siouan languages *R is indistinguishable from *t. - 'male' *pro'-ka (often with the noun former -ka in one or more of its reflexes) shows initial *pr in a noun, which behaves as *pr in Dakotan, but is elsewhere *R. - A1 + r..., or the first person of *r-stems like those formed with *ru- shows *pr in Dakotan and Dhegiha, but *R in IO and Wineebago (with added regular A1 ha in IO). - 'flat' *pra's, sometimes extended with *ka, shows *pr at the start of a verb stem, i.e., where first person inflection does not provide the *p, which is instead an organic part of the stem. This behaves as *pr across the board. We have to assume that the pattern of behavior with *pr above involves some degree of analogical levelling. It is entertaining to imagine that Siouan sound laws might be conditioned by morphological and/or lexical considerations, but it seems more likely that *pr became *R in initial position in early Dhegiha, Winnebago, and IO while remaining *pr non-initially and that the various morphological contexts sorted out differently in terms of whether the resulting *R ~ *pr alternation levelled to *R or *pr. For example, *R won across the board with nouns, lost across the board with verb stem initials, and won in inflection in Winnebago and IO, but not Dhegiha. It's been suggested that some of these *pr might be *wr or *br, but the patterns of correspondence, whatever the reconstructions may be, fall out exactly by the morphological contexts, not randomly mingled, and I am not easy with a scheme that restricts, say *pr to nouns, *br to inflection, and *wr to verbs. Besides, there are reasons why we might expect the initial labial to come from *wV- in all of these cases. So, I prefer to see these cases all as *pr (maybe *[br]) that does not contrast with *wr, and that in many cases comes from *wV-r, but develops differently in different contexts. So far I have only considered *r, *R, and *pr before oral vowels. It turns out that *r before nasal vowels develops more or less as an n, except that sometimes it stays r (or whatever *r becomes), usually in verbs. If we try to see nasalization of *r to n as not occurring in verbs (in the relevant languages, e.g., OP) then the exceptions are those verbs where *r is always n. I conclude that I don't quite understand the interaction of *r and nasality, but I won't go into the examples. As far as *R before nasal vowels, it seems not to occur. Maybe that explains the anomalous n-verbs - *R/__VN is always n, though *r is not? Again, this is something of a side issue, and I'm not going to go into it here. So, that brings us to *pr before nasal vowels, and here we have some clear examples. PMV Te OP IO Wi 'water' *priN mni(N)' niN(iN)' niN(iN)' niNiN' 'smell' *-praN -mna(N) -bdhaN -braN -paNnaN This latter example here is the stinky kind of smell, or at least 'to have an odor of', which is often found with the *o- locative. I'm not thinking of any definitely *rVN... verbs to do inflection with. The cases that come close seem to be really *yVN... or to have epenthetic *r in the third and sometimes second persons on a stem *(?)VN... Passing regretfully on to conclusions we can see that *pr in verb stems behaves pretty much the same before nasal vowels as before oral ones. But in nouns it is mn in Dakotan, where it was bl (Teton of course) before oral vowels. And in nouns elsewhere it looks like an n, or just like *r looks when a nasal vowel follows it. So, we have our choice of saying that *pr in nouns before nasal vowels becomes *r which naturally behaves as *r would behave before a nasal vowel, becoming n, or that *pr in nasal nouns becomes *R as it does in oral nouns, and that *R behaves like *r before nasal vowels and becomes n. (Maybe it makes sense to think of anomalous n in verbs as *R/__VN? But I digress - as usual.) On that note, I return to 'three'. It seems that *pr PS *raa'priN becomes n, leading to *Raa'niN because *pr/__VN in medial position acts like n. There's still that nagging initial *R in *Raa'niN (or really *Raa'RiN) which derives irregularly from *r. Perhaps this is because Pre-Proto-Winnebago-IO had *praa'priN for 'three'? The initial *pr would need explaining, but the phonology would be regular. The initial *pr might be influence from the medial *pr, or, there are some constructions in which numrals receive *wV prefixes, and perhaps this is the source of the contamination. The former seems more likely because there's no trace of *wV- prefixation running amuck on other Winnebago-IO numerals that I know of. Based on the foregoing, I am proposing that medial *pr behaves like noun-initial *pr in Winnebago and IO. But what is medial *pr and are there other cases of it? The whole concept of (root) mediality in Siouan is fraught with difficulties. The cannonical Siouan root is a (C)CV or (C)CVCV form, and the last V is often a bit uncertain or arbitrary or missing in the bisyllabic cases. There just aren't many (C)CVCCV stems. Anything with a heavier or longer structure than (C)CV(CV) is highly suspect, as a root. Even forms like (C)CVCVN are likely not to be a single root. You can, of course, get much longer forms by compounding, derivational prefixing, enclisis, and inflection - or combinations of these. Longer forms are also sometimes loans, as in cases like Teton s^agla's^a 'British person' or OP kku'kkusi 'pig' or kku'kkumiN 'cucumber'. When not loans they must be suspected of involving a compound, possibly an old compound no longer transparent, of the form (C)CVC-CV or (C)CV-(C)CV. In many cases inflectional patterns suggest that to native perceptions "no longer etymologically transparent" and "not obviously a compound" are two different things, since forms like this are often the infixing or multiply inflected verbs. With this in mind, I have the following candidates for medial *pr in mind, though I am not sure some or all of them do not involve compounds or derivational prefixing and in some cases I am essentially positive that they do. PMV Te OP IO Wi 'three' *raa'priN ya'mni(N) dhaa'bdhiN daa'niN daaniN' 'bean' *huN'priNka omni(N)'c^a hiNbdhiN'ge uNuN'niNge huNuNniN'k woB *(i)hti'pro thiblo' (i)tti'nu (i)c^hiN'do (hi)c^ido(ra) 'ten' *kyee'praN (wi)kc^e'mna(N) gdhe'b(dh)aN gree'braN kerepaNnaN' Note that Winnebago 'ten' usually has (h)iz^aN 'one' appended to it. 'Bean' is suspected of being a loan, perhaps ultimately from Uto-Aztecan, and the initial syllable is very irregular across the Siouan languages that have versions of it, so the loan was probably fairly late, i.e., not into Proto-Siouan or even Proto-Mississippi Valley. The abbreviation woB stands for 'woman's older brother'. This form in particular may be a a compound 'house' + 'male', i.e., something like 'household (or lineage) male'. OP has simplfied gdhee'bdhaN 'ten' to gdhee'baN since the earliest recording of OP 'ten', probably sometime in the middle 1800s. Three of these four forms have *pr becoming *R (or n before a nasal vowel) in IO and Winnebago. The exception is 'ten', and, of course the final -raabriN in IO 'eight' is exceptional, too. I would expect 'ten' *gree'naN in IO and 'eight' *gree'daaniN. I do not know why either is exceptional, though my hypothesis with 'eight' has been that it is a loan, even though no other Siouan language has a gree-N construction for any 5+N numeral, let alone 'eight'. It would be difficult to maintain that 'ten' was a loan, too, because it is also exceptional in Winnebago, which has an innovated form haruwaN'k for 'eight'. So, if 'ten' is a loan, it would have to have been an early loan, which might prove problematic in explaining the Miami-Illinois form as a (fairly) recent loan of a preceding form. One might explain retention of *pr as br in 'eight' as due to the rhythmic structure of 'eight' (CVV'CVprV), but the rhythmic structure of 'three' and 'ten' is much the same (CVV'prV), and 'three' changes *pr to *R (n), while 'ten' does not. I will leave matters at that point for now. Additional examples of medial *pr would be welcome! From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed May 5 15:31:52 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:31:52 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll add to John's list below that the Assiniboine word for 'seven' is iyu's^na. Here's Deloria's comment (1936:6): 'Iyu's^na indicates 'one odd one'. There is an Assiniboine stickgame, called Iyu^na, in which seven sticks are used as counters; and the odd one is the determinant of the game's outcome." I've never had that confirmed by any of my consultants, and I'm not sure whether Deloria intends this as an explanation of the origin of their word for 'seven', or as an example of its application. The word does not seem to be related to Lak. iyu's^la/Dak. iyu's^da 'scissors'. The Asb word for 'scissors' is iNca's^na or mas?iN'yukse. The numbers 1-10 are otherwise as in Lakhota. Linda Quoting Koontz John E : > The forms from my earlier posting, perhaps open to some corrections, are > repeated below: > > Tu Bi Of > 'two' noNoN'paa noN'pa nuN'pha > 'three' laa'ni(N) da'ni(N) ta'ni(N) > 'seven' saakoo'miNiN noN'pahudi fa'kumi(N) > 'eight' palaa'ni(N) dan'hudi' pa'tani(N) > > Te OP IO Wi > 'two' nuN'pa naNba' nuN(uN)'we nuNuN'p > 'three' ya'mni(N) dha'bdhiN da(a)'i daani' > 'seven' s^ako'wiN ppe'dhaNba sa(a)'hmaN s^aagoo'wiN > 'eight' s^aglo'gha ppe'dhabdhiN greeraa'briN harumaN'k > > Things in Mandan and Crow-Hidatsa, as I recall it, are quite different. > > The reconstructions supported by these forms are: > > 'two' *nuNuN'pa > 'three' *raa'priN > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > 'eight' ??? > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 15:33:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:33:18 -0600 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233AA4@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I thought I'd warn the list of a potential problem with Siouan list posts. Bob Rankin indicates that the KU mailer's artificial meat filter gave my post on medial pr in Proto-Siouan (and Chiwere) eight stars. I suppose it might have been the asterisk in the subject line, which looked to the filter like an attempt to break up a recognizable word, on the order of somedrugwordpart1-asterisk-somedrugwordpart2. That's dumb of the filter. The only reasonable way to deal with the interruption strategy for sneaking in artificial meat is to compress all the non-letters out of the text and look for artificial meat-matching matching strings in the compressed text. However, I think all the filters are dumb this way. They weren't devised by people used to processing Siouan data ... Another possible problem might be having over a certain percentage of lines with gibberish like Siouan words written in NetSiouan (or anything else). Anyway, you may wish to examine your artificial meat letters carefully. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 15:51:06 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:51:06 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <1083771112.409908e82f3ed@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > I'll add to John's list below that the Assiniboine word for 'seven' is > iyu's^na. Here's Deloria's comment (1936:6): 'Iyu's^na indicates 'one > odd one'. There is an Assiniboine stickgame, called Iyu^na, in which > seven sticks are used as counters; and the odd one is the determinant of > the game's outcome." I wonder if iyus^na might not be a word for a game (shinny?) stick, i.e., 'with which to make it (specific, i.e., the ball) slide'? I assume a general purpose slider, 'it slides things' would be wi'yus^na. From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 5 16:35:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:35:06 -0500 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat Message-ID: I'm afraid it just did the same to Linda's posting as well, although she only rated 6 stars (a little oxycontin, viagra or porn would get a few more). I seem to be the only one with this problem. KU seems to have a very aggressive filtering system. If I continue to be the only one with the problem, I'll just take it in stride and look over my alleged "spam" carefully instead of deleting it wholesale. Don't change a lot of things just for my sake. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:33 AM To: Siouan List Subject: RE: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat I thought I'd warn the list of a potential problem with Siouan list posts. Bob Rankin indicates that the KU mailer's artificial meat filter gave my post on medial pr in Proto-Siouan (and Chiwere) eight stars. I suppose it might have been the asterisk in the subject line, which looked to the filter like an attempt to break up a recognizable word, on the order of somedrugwordpart1-asterisk-somedrugwordpart2. That's dumb of the filter. The only reasonable way to deal with the interruption strategy for sneaking in artificial meat is to compress all the non-letters out of the text and look for artificial meat-matching matching strings in the compressed text. However, I think all the filters are dumb this way. They weren't devised by people used to processing Siouan data ... Another possible problem might be having over a certain percentage of lines with gibberish like Siouan words written in NetSiouan (or anything else). Anyway, you may wish to examine your artificial meat letters carefully. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 17:36:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:36:59 -0600 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233AA6@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: It looks like it's probably NetSiouan that's causing the problem. Punctuation embedded in the middle of words. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed May 5 18:40:26 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:40:26 EDT Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: In a message dated 5/4/2004 10:49:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > Things in Mandan and Crow-Hidatsa, as I recall it, are quite different. > > The reconstructions supported by these forms are: > > 'two' *nuNuN'pa > 'three' *raa'priN > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > 'eight' ??? > > The Crow forms are: sa'hpua 'seven' du'upahpi 'eight' (du'upa 'two') hawa'tahpi 'nine' (hawa'ta 'one' I would suggest that the 'seven' form may be (at least partially) cognate. Crow does not allow kp clusters morpheme-internally, so kp > hp. Then, long vowels are shortened before h (sa'ah > sa'h). The forms for 'eight' and 'nine' are transparent: 'two less than (ten)', one less than (ten)'. Related form: alaxpi' 'leftovers, remainder' Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 5 19:43:01 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:43:01 -0500 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat Message-ID: Maybe so. I wonder what our foreign students do, getting email in all sorts of foreign alphabets, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:36 PM Subject: RE: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat > It looks like it's probably NetSiouan that's causing the problem. > Punctuation embedded in the middle of words. > > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed May 5 20:47:07 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:47:07 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <1083771112.409908e82f3ed@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Members: The tern iyu'tan is used in the Dakota Moccasin Game when the loosing team has only 4 counting sticks left. Perhaps iyu^na is related. From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed May 5 21:12:16 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:12:16 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <1083771112.409908e82f3ed@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Fr Valentin Vegreville gives the form caGuweG for "seven". (His head entry is Sept, ou sept fois) (G = g with a superscript dot, which I take to be a velar fricative) He compiled his 'Lexique' , seemingly, in 1876-77 when he was at the Lac-Ste-Anne parish in Alberta. The form is presumably Stoney, though he himself uses the term Assiniboine. "Six ou six fois" is caGpeG. His , by the way, = s^. Mary At 10:31 AM 5/5/2004 -0500, you wrote: >I'll add to John's list below that the Assiniboine word for 'seven' is >iyu's^na. > Here's Deloria's comment (1936:6): 'Iyu's^na indicates 'one odd one'. > There is >an Assiniboine stickgame, called Iyu^na, in which seven sticks are used as >counters; and the odd one is the determinant of the game's outcome." > >I've never had that confirmed by any of my consultants, and I'm not sure >whether >Deloria intends this as an explanation of the origin of their word for >'seven', >or as an example of its application. The word does not seem to be related to >Lak. iyu's^la/Dak. iyu's^da 'scissors'. The Asb word for 'scissors' is >iNca's^na >or mas?iN'yukse. > >The numbers 1-10 are otherwise as in Lakhota. > >Linda From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 22:11:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:11:01 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > The Crow forms are: > sa'hpua 'seven' > > I would suggest that the 'seven' form may be (at least partially) cognate. > Crow does not allow kp clusters morpheme-internally, so kp > hp. Then, long > vowels are shortened before h (sa'ah > sa'h). Yes, I think that's right. Bob's covered this territory before, of course, but I was misremembering when I said I thought there was nothing similar in this range in CH and Mandan. The Crow 'seven' form is especially similar to the PS form IO suggests, *s^aakwaN. I seem to recall that final ua and ia suggest final h, i.e., ...ua < ...uh-a and ...ia < ...ih-a or something like that? From rankin at ku.edu Thu May 6 01:48:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 20:48:19 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: Apart from the fact that, for me, appeal to such hypothetical evidence just isn't comparative linguistics, I think I'd expect any earlier Ioway form to match the present-day Winnebago form for the same numeral, especially if the WI form were cognate with other MVS forms. If it too seems to be innovated, then we're simply without evidence for the earlier Chiwere word. I'm certainly at a loss to explain how a transparent hypothetical older form **phe:-ra:niN would be replaced by an equally or not-quite-as-transparent borrowed replacement kre:-ra:briN. I assume the Osages (and Kaws) borrowed a Wichita word for 'eight' precisely because it resembled the Siouan term for 'four' with a prefix they could folk-etymologize. But that argument doesn't work for replacing our hypothetical **phe:ra:niN. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:47 PM Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) > On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > Chiwere (Ioway), on the other hand, lacks not only the putative > > source-word for 'eight'; it also lacks any trace of the companion term > > for 'seven'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 6 06:19:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:19:27 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <00bc01c4330c$8ec70bd0$2bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Apart from the fact that, for me, appeal to such hypothetical evidence > just isn't comparative linguistics, ... I think you're right there. It's not comparative linguistics, as there's nothing to compare. I do think it's a sort of second level deductive process that might qualify as historical, if not comparative, linguistics. It is, of course, informed by comparative linguistics. None of this would have occurred to me if I hadn't been bothered by -raabriN in Chiwere 'eight'. Things would remain there, of course, if it weren't for the IO form providing a possible glimpse of what might have been. I am, if not comparing, at least correlating the MI 'eight' form and the deduced gap atr "eight" in the IO numeral set. In a related sense you are comparing the MI 'eight' form with the Tutelo 'eight' form, though with the considerable advantage an two concrete forms. Tutelo p(h)alaaniN is certainly a reasonably good fit for MI paraare ~ palaani and the 'six' forms David brought up are suggestively similar, too, but a certain amount of geographical hypothesizing is necessary to bring Tutelo and MI into conjunction in an appropriate time frame, even though they're not so astoundingly far apart that we start wondering about coincidence. Tutelo 'eight' is the best surviving fit for MI 'eight', and it's clear that MI 'eight' is of Siouan origin, but it seems a bit of a leap to assume that because Tutelo is the best fit and a reasonable fit it is "the fit." The Tutelo form looks good, but was Tutelo in the right place at the right time? Actually, another Southeastern language would probably do as well as far as the form of 'eight', and perhaps with less strain. The combined evidence of Tutelo and Ofo suggest that Biloxi's pattern of 'eight' is the divergent, innovated form, and that if there were other Southeastern languages now extinct, they would have had an 'eight' consistent with Tutelo and/or Ofo. If Tutelo was located in West Virginia about the time of contact it could have been a Siouan language located there because at some point a largish population of Pre-Tutelo speakers moved there from elsewhere, but it is at least as likely that it reprented a local variety of a family with a more or less contiguous distribution from the Trans-Mississippi to West Virginia. If Algonquian expanded into the middle of this area then wherever MI came into existence in this process it might have been in the presence of a Southeastern Siouan substratum and it would be very likely that any Southeastern language would have had a a Tutelo and/or Ofo-like form of 'eight'. What I did instead of taking this route was to notice that Mississippi Valley languages also have, in the case of Dhegiha, 'eight' forms not unlike the Southeastern 'eight' forms, and that, unlike MI-Tutelo contact, which rests entirely on 'eight' and a very general proximity, there is considerable historical evidence of direct contact and even merger of MI and MV groups. So I asked myself what it would take to get the 'eight' form from MV insteadof SE and came up with the previously observed problem of the IO 'eight' form's shape, plus the observable fact that IO and Winnebago have forms of 'three' that are pretty good matches for the 'three' part of the MI 'eight' term, this form of 'three' being more or less precisely the form of 'three' so strangely missing in that IO 'eight' form. The lingistic logic is admitedly much more complex than the simple similarity of the Tutelo attested form, but I think that the geography and history of the MV-source hypothesis are much simpler, to the point of being essentially a matter of record. > I'm certainly at a loss to explain how a transparent hypothetical older > form **phe:-ra:niN would be replaced by an equally or > not-quite-as-transparent borrowed replacement kre:-ra:briN. This is one of the mysteries of historical linguistics. Yet we know that Siouan (and Algonquian) languages repeatedly replaced perfectly good, and in some cases, perfectly transparent numerals with others, either borrowed or locally produced. While I would certainly like to know why this happened in every case (and we have some general ideas, certainly) to some extent it's enough to know that the pattern is attested to occur. So, one might hand the question off by saying that the reasonswere not unlike those which explain why MI took up a Siouan 'eight' form. My guess would be, in both cases, that a more or less bilingual or multi-lingual population ended up sorting several numeral systems into one of mixed origin. In fact, I think that the nature of the Siouan numerals suggests that multiple systems within one language were the norm in the past. > But that argument doesn't work for replacing our hypothetical > **phe:ra:niN. In the particular case of replacing one transparent formulation with another the very transparency is probably a factor. If 'eight' is clearly 'three more' then any formulation for 'three more' is equivalent, and if I like the sound of 'thereto three' better and others follow me, the formula has changed, or, at least, an additional formula has come into being. In the hypothetical IO case there was a population in which a *phe or *pha series and a *gree series of formulations coexisted, complicated by some speakers using *raabriN for 'three' and others using *daa'niN, presumably as parts of coherent series of lower-digit numerals with different MV dialect origins. Other forms may have existed as well, some less transparent, just as hki'etopa and hpedhabriN coexist(ed) in Osage, but without any conception that only one numeral system was possible at a time. > I assume the Osages (and Kaws) borrowed a Wichita word for 'eight' > precisely because it resembled the Siouan term for 'four' with a prefix > they could folk-etymologize. I'd forgotten this aspect of the Osage form! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 6 06:32:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:32:02 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > The Crow forms are: > sa'hpua 'seven' > > Bob's covered this territory before, of course, but I was misremembering > when I said I thought there was nothing similar in this range in CH and > Mandan. It was the Mandan forms I had glanced at. But looking at these tonight I remembered that kuu'pa 'seven' is perhaps comparable to *s^aako(o)wiN or *S^aakwaN ~ *s^aakpaN. It's just missing the initial s^aa. I think that was a point made by Rankin and Zeyrek (which is buried somewhere in my file boxes). Why I can remember this and not the Wichita thing for Osage 'eight' I don't know. I don't like the hypothesis that comes to me, which is that my mind is no longer remembering new things. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu May 6 19:54:12 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:54:12 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, I have only been following this discussion a little bit, since it's final exam time. This mentioned Wichita, however, and I remember that there was some theory about one of the Dhegia languages borrowing Wichita, so here's the Wichita data, if it's worth anything: The numbers 6,7,8 are built on 1,2,3 with a prefix kiyah- which doesn't seem to mean anything recoverable now (a homonym meaning 'who?, someone' is an unlikely source). (* is high pitch on preceding vowel) six: ki*yehess ('one' is chi7ass; the 7ass is the numeral) seven kiya*hwic ('two' is wic) eight kiya*tawha ('three' is tawha, final vowel voiceless) 'nine' is 'one is missing' and ten is long but unanalyzeable. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 6 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 5 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > > > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > > The Crow forms are: > > sa'hpua 'seven' > > > > Bob's covered this territory before, of course, but I was misremembering > > when I said I thought there was nothing similar in this range in CH and > > Mandan. > > It was the Mandan forms I had glanced at. But looking at these tonight I > remembered that kuu'pa 'seven' is perhaps comparable to *s^aako(o)wiN or > *S^aakwaN ~ *s^aakpaN. It's just missing the initial s^aa. I think that > was a point made by Rankin and Zeyrek (which is buried somewhere in my > file boxes). Why I can remember this and not the Wichita thing for Osage > 'eight' I don't know. I don't like the hypothesis that comes to me, which > is that my mind is no longer remembering new things. > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 6 20:18:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:18:53 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 May 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > John, I have only been following this discussion a little bit, since > it's final exam time. This mentioned Wichita, however, and I remember > that there was some theory about one of the Dhegiha languages borrowing > Wichita [eight], so here's the Wichita data, if it's worth anything: > The numbers 6,7,8 are built on 1,2,3 with a prefix kiyah- which > doesn't seem to mean anything recoverable now (a homonym meaning 'who?, > someone' is an unlikely source). (* is high pitch on preceding vowel) > six: ki*yehess ('one' is chi7ass; the 7ass is the numeral) > seven: kiya*hwic ('two' is wic) > eight kiya*tawha ('three' is tawha, final vowel voiceless) > 'nine' is 'one is missing' and ten is long but unanalyzeable. Bob's comparing Osage hki'etopa to the Wichita 'eight' form. Note that topa is the Osage 'four' term. Wichita tawha 'three' is the Wichita version of the Caddoan 'three' form. 'Three' is one of Wally's Macro-Siouan sets, as I recall it, and would be cognate with PS *raa'priN (or, equivalently, *raa'wriN). I don't recall the Proto-Caddoan version of the form. If Osage does borrow 'eight' from Wichita, it's a second or third case of borrowed 'eight' terms in the general Midwestern area - Wichita > Osage, Tutelo (or something Siouan) > Miami-Illinois, and (something Siouan) > Ioway-Otoe. It's almost as if 'eight' were tabooed in some way. As Bob points out in regard to the possibility of the IO form being borrowed, the existing terms, attested or hypothetical by analogy with respect to transparent formations for adjacent numerals or related languages are not problematic in any morphological way. On the other hand 'higher' digits (six to nine) seem particularly unstable and/or transparently formed in Siouan languages. The 'nine' term is definitely widely borrowed regionally, too. Maybe this is just a culture area in which innovation and/or multiple sets of forms were common in this area in the pre-contact period. After contact base-ten numeration would tend to be common as a result of European commercial influence. It's interesting that along with Osage {hki'e}topa and the Wichita kiyah- based higher digits we also have IO {gree}raapriN and PS *{kye}praN (or *{kyee}wraN) 'ten'. This almost looks like an areal "higher digit" formant. I also wonder about the *s^aak- element that is so common in Siouan higher digits. Could it be *s^aak < **kyaak? From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu May 6 23:19:51 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:19:51 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I also wonder about the *s^aak- element that is so common in Siouan higher > digits. Could it be *s^aak < **kyaak? I've wondered about that too. It seems that most of the "higher digit" formants in series that count up must effectively mean 'five+', however they may actually be derived. When I first started looking at Siouan languages around 1990, I tried comparing vocabulary lists from six languages for which I was then able to get some material: Omaha, Osage, Lakhota, IO, Biloxi and Hidatsa. I found that the first four were fairly close, with Biloxi more distant and Hidatsa hardly recognizable as being related. One thing that struck me at the time was that the word for 'hand' had been replaced in the (MVS) group: in Hidatsa and Biloxi, and presumably PS, 'hand' had been something like *s^aki or *s^ake. In MVS, however, 'hand' was *naNpe, while the *s^aki/*s^ake term had moved on to mean 'nail', 'claw', 'hoof' or 'talon'. Am I remembering this right? Anyway, if 'hand' was originally *s^aki/*s^ake, might that not be the derivation of the *s^aak- we find in some of the higher order numbers? It would be an obvious choice for the 'five+' requirement. The problem is that this is also the only "higher digit" formant that pairs with things that don't look anything like Siouan 'one', 'two' or 'three'. We would seem to need a "lower digit" counting system something like: 1 = *pe 2 = *owiN/*owaN 3 = *rog^aN/*yog^aN I don't suppose anybody knows of any numerical system comparable to that, either inside or outside of Siouan? Given how widespread the *s^aak- terms are, the original formation of these should be pretty old. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 7 00:57:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 19:57:24 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8. Message-ID: > > I also wonder about the *s^aak- element that is so common in Siouan > higher digits. Could it be *s^aak < **kyaak? Just *$aake 'hand' is good and sufficient. And the cognate sets show this WAS the original 'hand' term. NaNpe is just the MVS replacement. I have a paper on these higher numerals from some years back too. Actually most of the quinary counting systems in eastern north america are only partially quinary. 7 and 8 are the most common, 6, 7, and 8 are next. "Nine" seldom participates and is often "one missing". My paper hypothesized that the system in MVS makes the best sense when understood as part of the Plains Sign Language hand signals for the numbers. It too was pre-computer so I'll have to retype it someday. The Kaw for 8 is kkiyadoba or kkiadoba. I suspect this is from that Wichita form. Bob > > I've wondered about that too. It seems that most of the > "higher digit" formants in series that count up must > effectively mean 'five+', however they may actually be > derived. > > When I first started looking at Siouan languages around > 1990, I tried comparing vocabulary lists from six languages > for which I was then able to get some material: Omaha, Osage, > Lakhota, IO, Biloxi and Hidatsa. I found that the first four > were fairly close, with Biloxi more distant and Hidatsa > hardly recognizable as being related. One thing that struck > me at the time was that the word for 'hand' had been replaced > in the (MVS) group: in Hidatsa and Biloxi, and presumably PS, > 'hand' had been something like *s^aki or *s^ake. In MVS, > however, 'hand' was *naNpe, while the *s^aki/*s^ake term > had moved on to mean 'nail', 'claw', 'hoof' or 'talon'. > Am I remembering this right? > > Anyway, if 'hand' was originally *s^aki/*s^ake, might that > not be the derivation of the *s^aak- we find in some of the > higher order numbers? It would be an obvious choice for > the 'five+' requirement. The problem is that this is > also the only "higher digit" formant that pairs with things > that don't look anything like Siouan 'one', 'two' or 'three'. > We would seem to need a "lower digit" counting system > something like: > > 1 = *pe > 2 = *owiN/*owaN > 3 = *rog^aN/*yog^aN > > I don't suppose anybody knows of any numerical system > comparable to that, either inside or outside of Siouan? > Given how widespread the *s^aak- terms are, the original > formation of these should be pretty old. > > Rory > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 05:45:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 23:45:38 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > One thing that struck me at the time was that the word for 'hand' had > been replaced in the (MVS) group: in Hidatsa and Biloxi, and presumably > PS, 'hand' had been something like *s^aki or *s^ake. In MVS, however, > 'hand' was *naNpe, while the *s^aki/*s^ake term had moved on to mean > 'nail', 'claw', 'hoof' or 'talon'. Am I remembering this right? Right, as, of course, Bob has already confirmed. (And I think I heard once that somebody had observed from a general study that terms for parts of the limbs tended to move outward along the limb, or perhaps it was the reverse.) I had, of course, been thinking something along these lines, though in my case from having read Bob's paper at some point (or at least having seen the handout), but I couldn't help noticing the other similarity, too. I suspect it's just a coincidence. I notice that the kiyah- formant is restricted to Wichita, even, within Caddoan, at least as far as I can make out at Mark Rosenfelder's numeral collection site (http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml). For that matter, though IO gree- in gree'raabriN 'eight' could be from either *kree- or *kyee-, I think the similarity of the initial syllable there to PMV *kyee'praN 'ten' is probably also coincidental, because a positional analysis involving *the (*k + the > *kre, and Bob suggests *the < *re-he). Only Dakotan preserves *ky distinct from *kr, incidentally. > Anyway, if 'hand' was originally *s^aki/*s^ake, might that not be the > derivation of the *s^aak- we find in some of the higher order numbers? > It would be an obvious choice for the 'five+' requirement. Obviously Bob agrees, and I'll chime in and agree with both of you. I suspect Wolff and Matthews might even have noticed this, too, though I don't recall a reference, off hand. > The problem is that this is also the only "higher digit" formant that > pairs with things that don't look anything like Siouan 'one', 'two' or > 'three'. We would seem to need a "lower digit" counting system something > like: > > 1 = *pe > 2 = *owiN/*owaN > 3 = *rog^aN/*yog^aN > I don't suppose anybody knows of any numerical system comparable to > that, either inside or outside of Siouan? Given how widespread the > *s^aak- terms are, the original formation of these should be pretty old. It would definitely be interesting to look for a numeral series like this, and I did briefly look for it at Rosenfelder's site, without any real luck, but no persistence either. If we look within Siouan, and if we bear in mind that the numerals often show little contrast between *Cp and *Cw, even though the phonology isn't always regular, and that, in fact, we don't reconstruct *Cw clusters except in a few unusual cases, it's possible that *s^aakpe might be *s^aak-we, and that the *we might be essentially wiN or waN 'one'. Then *owiN could be "(one more) on one." However, beyond that my imagination fails me. I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun May 9 11:58:01 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 06:58:01 -0500 Subject: Hand gestures: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this > direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not > *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made > with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand > counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 > with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle > 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! > On the subject of hand gestures in counting, here's a fairly detailed description from Denig's "The Assiniboine", written around 1854 at Ft. Union: "In counting with the hand, an Indian invariably begins with the little finger of the left, shutting it down forcibly with the thumb of the right; when the five fingers are thus shut he commences on the thumb of the right, shutting it with the left fist. When wishing to telegraph by signs a certain number less than 10 he holds up that number of fingers, beginning with the little finger of the left hand and keeping the others shut. Should the number be 7, then all the fingers of the left and thumb and finger of the right would be extended, holding up his hands, the rest of the fingers closed. Tens are counted by shutting and opening both hands; thus, 100 would be indicated by shutting and opening both hands 10 times in succession. The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand (the odd number)." Denig, Edwin Thompson (edited by JNB Hewitt with a new introduction by David R., Miller). Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, 2000:26. (p.420 in Hewitt's 46th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1928-1929) From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 9 14:27:28 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 09:27:28 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: > . . . possible that *s^aakpe might be *s^aak-we, and that the *we might be > essentially wiN or waN 'one'. I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this > direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not > *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made > with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand > counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 > with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle > 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! As I recall, my essential point was that, if you use the Plains Sign Language system for the numerals, then the number 6 is (re)interpretable as simply the second fist (with a nearly invisible thumb actually counting for the numeral). Then 7 extends one VISIBLE finger, giving the morpheme /-wiN/ 'one'. And so forth. The problem was figuring out what kind of a counting system would incorporate 'one' in 'seven' instead of 'six', and the hand signs accomplished that. The analysis may be a bit strained, but I still find it attractive. It's clear they were using the hand signs since 'nine' is something like /naNpciyuNka/ 'one in the palm' [the little finger] if memory serves. 'Ten', then, involves all the fingers extended on both hands. 'Eight' is odd man out. What is the meaning of -loghaN/-yoghaN of /$aglogaN/?? If I ever knew, I've forgotten. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 9 14:34:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 09:34:06 -0500 Subject: Hand signs for numerals in PSL. Message-ID: Right! This very nice description kindly sent by Linda is exactly the system protrayed in the publication with drawings that I used in my talk. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: > On the subject of hand gestures in counting, here's a fairly detailed > description from Denig's "The Assiniboine", written around 1854 at Ft. Union: > > "In counting with the hand, an Indian invariably begins with the little finger > of the left, shutting it down forcibly with the thumb of the right; when the > five fingers are thus shut he commences on the thumb of the right, shutting it > with the left fist. When wishing to telegraph by signs a certain number less > than 10 he holds up that number of fingers, beginning with the little finger of > the left hand and keeping the others shut. Should the number be 7, then all the > fingers of the left and thumb and finger of the right would be extended, holding > up his hands, the rest of the fingers closed. Tens are counted by shutting and > opening both hands; thus, 100 would be indicated by shutting and opening both > hands 10 times in succession. The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand > (the odd number)." > > > Denig, Edwin Thompson (edited by JNB Hewitt with a new introduction by David R., > Miller). Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, 2000:26. (p.420 in Hewitt's > 46th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the > Smithsonian Institution 1928-1929) > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 18:15:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:15:26 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <009801c435d1$d49ccf60$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > As I recall, my essential point was that, if you use the Plains Sign > Language system for the numerals, then the number 6 is (re)interpretable > as simply the second fist (with a nearly invisible thumb actually > counting for the numeral). Then 7 extends one VISIBLE finger, giving the > morpheme /-wiN/ 'one'. And so forth. The problem was figuring out what > kind of a counting system would incorporate 'one' in 'seven' instead of > 'six', and the hand signs accomplished that. Bob? I don't remember - were you placing a particular analysis on *pe in 'six'? In Denig's description that Linda cites, fingers are closed down in counting, rather that opened out. Denig: > In counting with the hand, an Indian invariably begins with the little > finger of the left, shutting it down forcibly with the thumb of the > right; when the five fingers are thus shut he commences on the thumb of > the right, shutting it with the left fist. So, 'six' involves the closed left fist holding down the right thumb. The closest I can get to a morpheme *pe that would describe this is the fist syllable of *pe'thaN 'to fold' (Dakotan *pehaN, OP bethaN, etc.), or maybe *pe'priN 'to twist' (Da pemni(N)', OP be'bdhiN, etc.), One would have to assume some sort of truncation - or, of course, another morpheme entirely! But, when the right index finger is closed down on the right thumb and the left fist placed on it you do have a locative + 'one' situation, htough I'd have expected the a-locative rather than the o-locative. I guess I should think of it as into the palm, not onto the thumb. > The analysis may be a bit strained, but I still find it attractive. It is a bit unexpected. I commented much earlier in this thread that it was surprising that 'seven' involved 'one', recapituating your earlier observation though not your insight. I think that the form speaks for itself, however, so that the problem is one of discovering, if possible, how 'one' could be intended, and not of justifying to ourselves that it is actually 'one'. It's obvious that 'one' isn't the X in 5 + X = 7. The *s^aak-based higher digits don't use that approach, whereas the *hpe- and *hpa-based higher digits do. One thing I notice about the counting scheme is that it starts with the little finger on the first hand, and the thumb on the second, so that, in effect, one could use a single hand - thumb out is 'four', but little finger ot is 'nine', and so on. The other hand acts to hold down the little finger for 'one', since little finger don't move well independently for most of us. This scheme can also be thought us as proceding iconically across the finger of the hands held up before one. Clark's The Indian Sign Language describes counting by extending or unfolding fingers, starting with the closed right hand, but, again, beginning with the little finger and continuing on the left hand with the thumb. By contrast, when I count with my fingers - and I assume I do this in the canonical way for my own culture, though perhaps I aven't been paying attention, as usual! - I start with my closed right fist and extend successive fingers starting with the index finger, using the thumb to hold down the little finger until it is needed for 'four', and adding the thumb to make five. Then I start over again in the same order on the left hand, perhaps holding up the open right hand to remind people that I've already reached five. I might tap each finger as it extends using the index finger of the other hand. Alternatively, I can start extending fingers with the thumb, holding the little finger in with the base of the thumb, and almost certainly tapping the extended fingers in this case. This approach avoids using the other hand to hold in the little finger, but it doesn't distinguish 1-5 from 6-10 by using different hand configurations. My understanding is that systems of finger counting differ culturally, though the same themes, obviously, tend to repeat themselves from the antomical limitations of the situation. > It's clear they were using the hand signs since 'nine' is something like > /naNpciyuNka/ 'one in the palm' [the little finger] if memory serves. > 'Ten', then, involves all the fingers extended on both hands. Denig describes folding in fingers in counting, but also extending them in showing numbers. Denig, again, from Linda: > When wishing to telegraph by signs a certain number less than 10 he > holds up that number of fingers, beginning with the little finger of the > left hand and keeping the others shut. Should the number be 7, then all > the fingers of the left and thumb and finger of the right would be > extended, ... I assume understands the Dakotan 'nine' construction is na(N)p- 'hand' plus c^iNyuNka, where the latter is something like (i)c^iyuNka < *i-ki-yuNka meaning something like 'it (one's own) sitting/lying with respect to it'. I have to assume the *i- to get c^i from *ki. Alternatively, it might be *raNraNpyiruNka (putting it in PMV terms) or *na(N)p-c^hiyuNka, with c^(h) < *y, but in that case I don't understand the construction. > 'Eight' is odd man out. What is the meaning of -loghaN/-yoghaN of > /$aglogaN/?? If I ever knew, I've forgotten. I can't find an etymology in terms of something like PMV *roghaN (with the forms Bob cites in Dakotan) either. The *ro might be 'flesh', but that doesn't seem to lead anywhere. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 18:19:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:19:20 -0600 Subject: Hand gestures: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 In-Reply-To: <1084103881.409e1cc99c113@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 May 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > Per Denig, "The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand (the odd > number)." How does the latter related to iyu's^na? From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 9 20:47:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:47:20 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: > Bob? I don't remember - were you placing a particular analysis on *pe in > 'six'? In Denig's description that Linda cites, fingers are closed down in > counting, rather that opened out. Start with a fist in front of you, palm down, parallel to the ground. Extend the little finger of this first hand for 'one'. Keep going thru the thumb = 'five'. Now, your second fist is extended beside the first (which by now has all 5 fingers extended. The extended thumb on the second fist makes it 'six', but of course the entire fist can easily be reinterpreted as the 'six' sign, since the thumb is not prominent. The index finger of the second hand (next to the thumb) is then 'seven', but it looks to the hearer as if only one finger is extended -- thus the seven term in the spoken language. Keep extending until only the last "pinkie" is left in the palm -- that's 'nine'. All fingers on both hands extended is 'ten'. That's what the pictures tell me. I think my source was Mallory or Clarke, nor can I remember who plagiarized from whom, although it's a matter of record.. > The closest I can get to a morpheme *pe that would describe this is the > fist syllable of *pe'thaN 'to fold' (Dakotan *pehaN, OP bethaN, etc.), or > maybe *pe'priN 'to twist' (Da pemni(N)', OP be'bdhiN, etc.),... > One thing I notice about the counting scheme is that it starts with the > little finger on the first hand, and the thumb on the second, Yep, you just go right across from one side to the other. The -pe of $akpe is just as mysterious as the *hpe- of the seven/eight numerals in Dhegiha. They may even be the same morpheme. I have no answer there. Bob From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun May 9 20:45:48 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:45:48 -0500 Subject: Hand gestures: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > On Sun, 9 May 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > > Per Denig, "The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand (the odd > > number)." > > How does the latter related to iyu's^na? > > > I was sort of hoping someone would have an idea on that. Denig's orthography is fairly inconsistent - frequently I can make out what he's writing because I already know the word. 'e' to him is 'i' to us, and 'a' is usually the typical 'a' in 'father', so you could almost make that case that he's attempting 'iyus^na', but where is the -yu- ? Denig knew the Assiniboine language, so it's not likely that he didn't hear the -yu-. Yet the meaning he assigns it correlates well with Deloria's explanation about a game of seven sticks in which the odd one determined the outcome. (Whether that's shinny or not, I don't know - I probably should ask Ray next time I see him.) Anyway, I figured "enshand" was in the ballpark, and since I have other things on my mind, I didn't explore it any further. Linda From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 23:03:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 17:03:31 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <00e801c43606$e5b8be50$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > The -pe of $akpe is just as mysterious as the *hpe- of the seven/eight numerals > in Dhegiha. They may even be the same morpheme. I have no answer there. I was wondering about that, but bothered by *hpe vs. *-pe. Now it occurs to me that one possible explanation of *hpe is *kpe, perhaps from *s^aakpe, cf. Mandan ku'pa 'seven' ?< PreMA *saakupa, cf. PS *s^aakowiN. In this case one would have to assume that the pattern in Dhegiha was modified along arithmetical lines: PMV PDh 1 *wiN' *wiN 2 *nuNuN'pa *ruNuN'pa 3 *raa'priN *raa'priN 4 *too'pa *too'pa 5 *saa'ptaN *saa'ptaN 6 *s^aa'k=pe *s^aa'kpe(wiN) 7 *s^aa'k=owiN *kpe'ruNuNpa 8 *s^aa'k=??? *kpe'raapriN 9 ??? *s^aNaN'kka 10 *kyee'rpaN *kyee'praN From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 03:46:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:46:16 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040505150424.017b0568@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > Fr Valentin Vegreville gives the form caGuweG for "seven". (His head > entry is Sept, ou sept fois) (G = g with a superscript dot, which I take > to be a velar fricative) He compiled his 'Lexique' , seemingly, in > 1876-77 when he was at the Lac-Ste-Anne parish in Alberta. The form is > presumably Stoney, though he himself uses the term Assiniboine. "Six ou > six fois" is caGpeG. His , by the way, = s^. I meant to ask about the final -G in these numerals. What does it represent? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 04:19:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 22:19:24 -0600 Subject: Procedural Comments Message-ID: If you are sending a response to the list, it is not necessary to also send it to the author of the posting you are responding to. They will receive a copy automatically, because they are subscribed to the list. You might want to cc any off-list parties who have been included in an exchange, especally if you included them yourself. My impression is that most people who regularly respond both to the list and to the sender of a posting on the list are being ambushed by a feature of their mailer, but I thought I'd mention it in passing. By intention the list is set up so that responses will go to the list if you do the default pattern of reply. You should have to take special steps to send an off-list or side response only to the poster. However, some mailer utilities are set up to circumvent this scheme. They either redirect the response to the poster, rather than the list, or they manage to arrange the headers of constributions so that in spite of ListProc's best efforts any response to that letter will go back to the original poster and not the list. It is probably possible configure most mailers not to do this, but the process may be infinitely complex. So far, the only solution to these various problems that I know of is vigilence. It never hurts to check to see who you are actually sending a letter to before you send it. I know some very sad stories about missent email. Unfortunately it's very easy to get into the habit of assuming that things are working as expected, because normally they do! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 04:24:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 22:24:51 -0600 Subject: Filtering to Avoid Siouan List Postings Being Identified as Artificial Meat Message-ID: The subject-line has been phrased that way to avoid over generous filters that filter on the usual word for artificial meat! We obviously can't avoid having postings classified as a.m., but it occurred to me that we could make it a bit easier to determine whether they were actually a.m. To this end I looked to see if I could insert the words [Siouan List] into the subject line. I discovered that the aging (superannuated, really) ListProc program that CU uses does not provide a feature of this. (The consortium that produced ListProc has actually formally disbanded itself.) In addition, though the comment "Siouan Linguistics List" is supposed to be included in all to-fields, and I think at one time it was, it now is not. The varying non-address text that you see there is acutally provided by whoever posted the letter. However, as far as I can tell, all arriving letters have the text siouan at lists.colorado.edu in the to-field, perhaps with additional material surrounding it. So, if you set up a filter to direct letters with this text in the to-field into a folder, specify not to do any further alternative filtering to such letters, and place this filter before any filters you have that direct letters with a.m. or equivalent into a trash folder, you should be able to guarantee that you receive letters sent to the list, as long as a.m. letters are still actually delivered to you and not deleted out of hand by the authorities. Forwarding them with an identifiying mark in the subject or the body of the message is still the usual practice. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 06:07:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:07:16 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: I laid this aside to reply to after looking into it further and, a month later, here I am getting to it. And not a minute too soon, as the non-historical, non-etymological readers are probably thinking they could do with a change, and maybe even the historians are ready for something non-numerical. Well, this is about plurals, and 'hand' and even 'claw' come into it near the end, but there are no numerals. On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > Rory said: > Thus, one leg would be /khe/, "elongate", but both legs would be /the/, > "the set". One eye would be /dhaN/, "globular", but both eyes would be > /the/. A single hand, however, is still /the/, I suppose because all > the fingers composing it are regarded as a set. I hadn't realized that legs were horizontal, which is sort of interesting in itself. Ardis responds: > Ok, I am not sure about how these were elicited but the pairs of body > parts associated with a given individual have taken the singular article > in most of the data I have seen produced naturally. > Ex. Zhibe kHe abita-a. > leg the touch-Femal command > 'Touch your leg(s).' > This is ambiguous between singular and plural. Well, I certainly agree that shifts in the inanimate articles are often used to indicate number or, rather, configurational changes that amount to number. Dorsey also regularly speaks of =the as a former of collectives. However, now that I've looked, it appears, contrary to what I might have expected, that the texts suggest that with body parts this does not normally occur. I would hesitate to suggest it never occurs, and I would also hesitate to guess what the implication would be when it did occur. I will look at '(lower) leg', 'eye' and 'hand', since Rory suggests those examples. I'll list clearly singular examples, followed by ambiguously singular or plural examples, followed by clearly plural examples. I won't always cite the context that makes the number clear. 'leg' Examples from Dorsey: 90:427.15 u'=i z^i'be=khe= dhaN he was wounded (in) the lower leg ??? 90:428.8 INs^?a'ge-wahidhe u'=i z^i'be=khe= dhaN IW they wounded (in) the lower leg ??? I think dhaN in these sentences is acting as the evidential. Wounding requires dhaN? (Side issue I will leave for now!) 90:564.10 kke'ttaNga ... z^i'be=khe=s^ti naNz^a'ge=xti maNdhiNdhiN Big Turtle the legs, too much bent he was walking about (with) 90:568.10 z^i'be sihi'= ge= di lower leg foot-bones the on on the feet of the lower (hind) legs So, 'lower leg', singular or plural, is always =khe 'the horizontal', except when =ge 'the scattered' is used. The examples are not particularly numerous, however, and one might wonder if a turtle's legs were a different case. 'eye' Examples from Dorsey: 90:24.6 Kki is^ta'=xti=dhaN u'=bi=ama and right (in) the eye he wounded him (singular) 90:248.7 ista'=dhaN uga's?iN=bi=ama his eye(s?) he peeked in (with) 90:314.12 is^ta'=dhaN udhi'bahiN= s^tes^te=waN the eye(s?) he pokes you in even if (maybe the w in waN indicates wa-aN and implies plural?) 90:145.3 is^ta'=dhaN giippi'guguda=bi= egaN her eyes she repeatedly rubbed holes in the them having As I understand this, she is rubbing her eyes in disbelief. I wrote gii- because Dorsey wrote gi+, though +-lengthening normally seems to indicate a rhetorical device. 90:171.7 (and similarly in 171.10 anbd 171.11) eda'be is^ta'=dhaN ze'=awadhe=tta=miNkhe also his eyes I will heal them 90:264.3 is^ta'=dhaN e'dhaNbe gdhiN'=bi=ama his eyes visible he sat (Big Turtle peeping out of the water) 91:21.4 is^ta'=dhaN aNdhaNdaNbe=xti his (own) eyes he has actually seen me with So 'eye' is always dhaN, singular or plural. 'hand' Examples from Dorsey 90:62.4 gaNkki naNbe'=the a'nasaNda=bi=ama and his hand it closed upon 90:470.8 naNbe'=the e'=dhaNska a hand that size 90:97.15 naNbe'=the aNwaNdhaN=ga my hand(s?) take hold of me by 90:63.2 (similarly in 63.6) naNbe'=the s^niNs^niN'de=xti gia'gha=bi=ama his hands very greasy he made them 90:96.4 naNbe'=the i'wikkaNttaN=tte ha your hands I will tie you to it by 90:235.18 naNbe'=the=s^ti his hands also 90:363.4-5 (similarly 364.11, etc.) PpaNdhiN=dhiNkhe naNbe' etta'=the maa'=sa=bi=egaN the Pawnee his hands they cut off 90:721.1 maNc^hu'-sabe, naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki grizzly-bear claws their hands some if you have 91:70.7 naNbe=the was^kaN=aNgi'kkidha=i our hands we make them active This last example involves paired hands, but of a group of individuals. Hands appear to always be =the, except for one case where disassociated, possibly never associated, paws take =ge. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 15:37:12 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:37:12 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) (correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > 90:721.1 > maNc^hu'-sabe, naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki => sage > grizzly-bear claws their hands some if you have From mary.marino at usask.ca Mon May 10 15:53:02 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:53:02 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think it represents the same sound as the medial "G" - a velar fricative, whether voiced or voiceless. Mary At 09:46 PM 5/9/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Wed, 5 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > Fr Valentin Vegreville gives the form caGuweG for "seven". (His head > > entry is Sept, ou sept fois) (G = g with a superscript dot, which I take > > to be a velar fricative) He compiled his 'Lexique' , seemingly, in > > 1876-77 when he was at the Lac-Ste-Anne parish in Alberta. The form is > > presumably Stoney, though he himself uses the term Assiniboine. "Six ou > > six fois" is caGpeG. His , by the way, = s^. > >I meant to ask about the final -G in these numerals. What does it >represent? From rankin at ku.edu Mon May 10 18:18:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:18:30 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: [RLR]: Actually, this is the best idea I've seen lately. There's your Siouan Conference paper for you. I've added my own Proto-Dhegiha reconstructions (as I understand PDh to be), but the upshot is exactly the same, of course. The source and meaning of PDh *hpee- has been bothering me for years. This makes good sense. [JEK]: > I was wondering about that, but bothered by *hpe vs. *-pe. Now it occurs to me that one possible explanation of *hpe is *kpe, perhaps from *s^aakpe, cf. Mandan ku'pa 'seven' ?< PreMA *saakupa, cf. PS *s^aakowiN. In this case one would have to assume that the pattern in Dhegiha was modified along arithmetical lines: PMV PDh PDh II (rlr) 1 *wiN' *wiN *wiN'-xti 2 *nuNuN'pa *ruNuN'pa *nooN'pa 3 *raa'priN *raa'priN *raa'briN 4 *too'pa *too'pa *too'pa 5 *saa'ptaN *saa'ptaN *saa'htaN 6 *s^aa'k=pe *s^aa'kpe(wiN) *$aa'hpe-(wiN) 7 *s^aa'k=owiN *kpe'ruNuNpa * hpee'noNpa 8 *s^aa'k=??? *kpe'raapriN * hpee'raabriN 9 ??? *s^aNaN'kka *$aaN'hka 10 *kyee'rpaN *kyee'praN *kree'braN [RLR]: With Proto-Chiwere having something closer to the PMV forms, the above paradigms would also explain why Chiwere has a /k/ in the initial syllable of /kree-raabriN/ 'eight', although it doesn't explain the /r/. I would have expected maybe **/kwe-/, instead of /kree-/. Vowel length in Dh *hpee- and Ch *kree- is also a loose end. This is a really interesting working hypothesis though. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 20:03:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:03:04 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510095050.017c8dd8@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > I think it represents the same sound as the medial "G" - a velar fricative, > whether voiced or voiceless. I was also wondering what final -x in Vegreville's s^axpex and s^ag.owex might represent morphologically? Is it the multiplicative? From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 11 15:35:02 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 8 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this > direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not > *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made > with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand > counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 > with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle > 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! > >>From another language family: the Uto-Aztecan language Nahuatl has a vegisimal system, based on 20, which represents the counting of ten fingers and *ten toes*. Unfortunately, I don't know how counting is performed physically. However, the numbers go like this, in translation: one two three four it is a hand-grabbed thing aside-one aside-two aside-three aside-four it is a hand torso hand-torso one hand-torso two hand-torso three hand-torso four fifteen fifteen one fifteen two fifteen three fifteen four it is one count Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 11 16:29:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:29:55 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > From another language family: the Uto-Aztecan language Nahuatl has a > vegisimal system, based on 20, which represents the counting of ten > fingers and *ten toes*. Unfortunately, I don't know how counting is > performed physically. ... Presumably a good deal of hopping occurs during the teens. > However, the numbers go like this, in translation: > aside-one 6 > aside-two 7 > aside-three 8 > aside-four 9 This sounds like it might involve holding the counted fingers in a different zone than usual, somewhat like my original suggestion that Siouan *(h)pa- and *hpe might involve holding the hand in a different place, e.g., near the head. Or it might refer to something like counting "beside" the already counted hand. From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 19:27:44 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:27:44 -0500 Subject: conference housing update Message-ID: I've had several inquiries about housing for the Siouan and Caddoan Languages conference -- Here's a quick update and reminder. (1) Motels: Super 8 Motel (402-375-4898) has a block of rooms reserved for us. $42/single, $45 double. Mention group confirmation number G-00007-66; call by May 27 to get group rate. Located about 8 blocks from the conference site, at 610 Tomar Dr. (just off 7th Street, which is also Highway 35). There are two other motels in Wayne: K-D Inn Motel 402-375-1770 Sports Club Motel 402-375-4222 (2) Dorm: Information has changed slightly -- it turns out there is room in a newly refurbished, airconditioned dorm, so this option may actually be a pretty comfortable one, in addition to being cheap and close. It IS still a dorm, though -- showers down the hall and so on. $21.50/single, $14.25 per person/double Neihardt Hall, conveniently next door to the conference site, right on the Wayne State campus. Limited number of rooms. Please make reservations EARLY! Contact Thom Osnes, housing supervisor at 402-375-7213, or contact me and I can make a reservation for you. Catherine From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 19:52:56 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:52:56 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: John wrote: "Well, I certainly agree that shifts in the inanimate articles are often used to indicate number or, rather, configurational changes that amount to number. Dorsey also regularly speaks of =the as a former of collectives. However, now that I've looked, it appears, contrary to what I might have expected, that the texts suggest that with body parts this does not normally occur. I would hesitate to suggest it never occurs, and I would also hesitate to guess what the implication would be when it did occur. ... So, 'lower leg', singular or plural, is always =khe 'the horizontal', ... So 'eye' is always dhaN, singular or plural. ... Hands appear to always be =the, except for one case where disassociated, possibly never associated, paws take =ge." ... Hmm... Does this look like lexicalization of the article to anyone else? Maybe lexicalization isn't the right term ... I mean the tendency, which has come up occasionally before in our discussions of the articles, for certain words to always take the same article, regardless of position/configuration (including stacks etc. for plural). Perhaps the articles are in the early stages of "fossilizing" -- losing their configurational semantics and becoming something more like gender-class markers? I don't mean to suggest that this is widespread -- they clearly indicate configuration in most cases. Does anyone remember examples other than body parts? It does make a certain amount of sense for body parts to be on the cutting edge of a change like this ... On another issue... The "lower leg" seems to favor Rory's "elongate" over "horizontal" for =khe. Another example here might be "hair" which I think (remembering off the top of my head, may well be wrong) is also always =khe, and even on the windy plains, hair tends not to stand out horizontal. Catherine From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 20:17:32 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: another update on the housing update Message-ID: More dorm info. David asked if one needs to bring towels and soap ... a question it hadn't occurred to me to ask. It turns out that linens are extra -- for $7 you get a "linen set" containing sheets, pillow, blanket, hand towels, bath towel, soap, maybe shampoo (the person I talked to wasn't sure). Room prices are also slightly different from what they quoted me a few months back... Here are the correct rates: double room: $15 per person $22 per person "with linens" single room: $22.50 $29.50 "with linens" They prefer to know in advance who wants a linen set, but will have some available in case someone needs one at the last minute. If you don't request a linen set, you'll want to bring not only towels but also a sleeping bag or bedding, pillow, etc. From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 20:59:30 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:59:30 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program Message-ID: OK, here's a first draft of the Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference program, just to give you an idea how it's looking. Comments/suggestions/additions welcome. So far there are 14 papers, one "mini-presentation", and two "round tables". A couple of other people have indicated they might want to present something but haven't given me a title; I haven't put them in the list here, but there's room to add them. (And for anyone else out there who might be thinking of coming ... we could fit in a few late submissions; just drop me a note.) For the round tables what I have in mind is 2 or 3 or 4 short presentations setting out the issues, segueing into general discussion. I've put these at the end of each day so as to leave the time for discussion flexible. Each one has two "startoff presenters" listed now -- anyone else want to volunteer? And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and such when the time is closer. - - - 24th Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference Tentative Program THURSDAY, JUNE 10, evening Informal get-together at Catherine's house FRIDAY, JUNE 11 MORNING: Thaddeus C. Grimm Wichita, KS "The Glottal Stop in Siouan Languages -- A Review" John Koontz Boulder, CO "Reconstructing Some Mississippi Valley Kinterms" Corey Telfer University of Calgary The History of Lakhota a-final Roots Mary Marino University of Saskatchewan "The French-Assiniboine Lexique of Fr Valentin Vegreville, OMI" Carolyn Quintero University of Oklahoma Mini-presentation: "Guns" FRIDAY AFTERNOON: Rory Larson University of Nebraska, Lincoln "Acculturation Terms in Omaha: Forms of Derivation" Carolyn Quintero University of Oklahoma "Osage Dictionary" Mark Awakuni-Swetland University of Nebraska, Lincoln "I am Looking for the Middle Ground / Tónde indónbe khe ubthíxide" *overhead projector ROUNDTABLE: language teaching issues, native vs. academic expectations & concerns, language "ownership" building on Mark's presentation Mark Awakuni-Swetland (University of Nebraska) Vida Stabler (Umonhon Nation School) Dean's reception? SATURDAY, JUNE 12, MORNING Randolph Graczyk "Topics in Crow Morphology: Reduplication and Possessive Reflexive" Linda Cumberland Indiana University "Specificity and Definiteness in Assiniboine" Regina Pustet "Aspect Marking in Lakota" Bruce Ingham SOAS London "Nature and Use of the Independent Personal Pronouns in Lakota" SATURDAY AFTERNOON: Robert Rankin U. Kansas "Active/Stative in Ohio Valley Siouan" David Rood U. Colorado "Wichita Word Formation" John Boyle University of Chicago "A Comparative look at aru-/ala- and aku-/ak- in Missouri Valley Siouan" ROUNDTABLE: Clause Structure in Siouan Catherine Rudin (Wayne State College) John Boyle (University of Chicago) Group dinner ... The Uptown? SUNDAY MORNING ? business meeting? Over breakfast at the coffeehouse? More sessions? (If more papers come in...) We could have the second roundtable Sunday morning. Or just quit and let those driving head for home... and those flying out later visit the local attractions :) In any case, the conference will end by noon Sunday at the latest. From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed May 12 05:09:47 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 23:09:47 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What you transcribe here as /x/ is in V's transcription /g/ with a superscript dot. It also occurs in other places: notably after "daNyaN". I don't know exactly what it is. I have been working on the lexicon for about 1 week. Save further questions until next month; I will bring the 2 manuscripts to the Siouan Conference. Mary At 02:03 PM 5/10/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 10 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > I think it represents the same sound as the medial "G" - a velar fricative, > > whether voiced or voiceless. > >I was also wondering what final -x in Vegreville's s^axpex and s^ag.owex >might represent morphologically? Is it the multiplicative? From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 12 16:32:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:32:34 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program Message-ID: > And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and such when the time is closer. I'd suggest participants who are junior faculty members or graduate students in their respective institutions for session chairs, as they can best use an extra line on their Vita. It may not count for much, but everything adds up over the years. Bob From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed May 12 19:04:17 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:04:17 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233AB4@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: OK - I can take a hint. Sign me up. What do I have to do? Linda Quoting "Rankin, Robert L" : > > And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and > have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? > I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and > such when the time is closer. > > I'd suggest participants who are junior faculty members or graduate > students in their respective institutions for session chairs, as they > can best use an extra line on their Vita. It may not count for much, > but everything adds up over the years. > > Bob > > > From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Wed May 12 20:11:27 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:11:27 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program Message-ID: Nothing too painful! Give speakers a sign of some sort if they're going over their allotted 30 minutes... tell us who the next speaker is. That's about it. Do you have a preference of which session? Thanks! Catherine lcumberl at indiana.edu Sent by: To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu owner-siouan at lists.c cc: olorado.edu Subject: RE: Tentative Program 05/12/04 02:04 PM Please respond to siouan OK - I can take a hint. Sign me up. What do I have to do? Linda Quoting "Rankin, Robert L" : > > And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and > have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? > I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and > such when the time is closer. > > I'd suggest participants who are junior faculty members or graduate > students in their respective institutions for session chairs, as they > can best use an extra line on their Vita. It may not count for much, > but everything adds up over the years. > > Bob > > > From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed May 12 21:17:59 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:17:59 EDT Subject: reduplication Message-ID: I'm doing something on reduplication in Crow for the Siouan/Caddoan conference, and would like to include a brief survey of reduplication in other Siouan languages. I have little or no information on Dhegiha, Winnebago and Chiwere. How does reduplication work in these languages? Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed May 12 21:43:41 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:43:41 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Presumably, I can't take the session in which I'm speaking, myself, so how about Saturday afternoon. I could take Friday afternoon, if you'd prefer, but probably best not to volunteer for Fri. a.m. in case something happens to delay me on the road and I don't make it into town on schedule. Linda Quoting Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC : > > Nothing too painful! Give speakers a sign of some sort if they're going > over their allotted 30 minutes... tell us who the next speaker is. That's > about it. Do you have a preference of which session? Thanks! > Catherine > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 12 23:41:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:41:55 -0600 Subject: reduplication In-Reply-To: <15c.3459ccb8.2dd3ee87@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > I'm doing something on reduplication in Crow for the Siouan/Caddoan > conference, and would like to include a brief survey of reduplication in > other Siouan languages. I have little or no information on Dhegiha, > Winnebago and Chiwere. How does reduplication work in these languages? One place with OP and Wi examples (albeit some of them misanalyzed) is the old Siouan survey article in HBNAIL, by Swanton and Boas. In OP there are no CVC roots for purposes of reduplication. Reduplication is of roots, not stems, e.g., an instrumental stem reduplicates its root, not the whole stem. An exception is es^e's^e 'you keep saying' < es^e' 'you say'. A C1V1C2V2 root reduplicates as C1V1C1V1C2C2. C1E roots reduplicate as C1aC1a, e.g., sasa < se. In this case se is really only found as an instrumental root (e.g., ga'se 'cut with a blow', we'base 'saw', etc.) and as a redplicated root sasa 'cut'. It process is essentially a way of making a distributive stem, and while it is not exactly pervasive, I think it is productive, or was in the 1800s. The examples in Dorsey seem spontaneous, not lexicalized. See, for example, the cases occuring in my recent post on /the/ vs/ /dhaN/. JEK From BARudes at aol.com Thu May 13 01:39:17 2004 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:39:17 EDT Subject: reduplication Message-ID: Randy, For what it is worth, here is what I have written in my draft grammar of Catawba about reduplication in that language. (Sb after a gloss means the form comes from Frank T. Siebert's notes.) Blair 3.1.1.2 Reduplicated Stems. A root morpheme, in particular a verb root, may be repeated to form a stem that expresses continued or sustained action in space or time, or intensive or distributive notions. In Catawba, the repeated form of the root is identical in phonemic structure to the base root, that it, there is no reduction or other phonological change in the shape of the root. Reduplication takes place before stress-assignment (section 2.1.3). Examples of inflected reduplicated stems and their inflected, un-reduplicated counterparts are the following. búu?hiree 'it sparks, flashes; he shoots (a gun)' (Sb) buu?búu?hiree 'it sparkles' (Sb) c^é?hiree 'it strikes causing a sound, makes a sound by striking' (Sb) ce^?c^é?hiree 'it ticks (as a clock), makes a ticking sound' (Sb) c^úu?hiree 'he chops, gives a chop or a peck' (Sb) c^uu?c^úu?hiree 'he pecks (as a woodpecker)' (Sb) haamúN?haree 'he breathes' (Sb) haamuN?haamúN?haree 'he pants, breathes rapidly' (Sb) káa?hiree 'he hits, strikes' (Sb) kaa?káa?hiree 'he beats, strikes over and over' (Sb) tí?hiree 'he crushes, compresses, presses down' (Sb) ti?tí?hiree 'he pounds, mashes to bits' (Sb) wáN?hiree 'he jumps, leaps, gives a jump' (Sb) waN?wáN?hiree 'he hops, keeps jumping' (Sb) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 05:11:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:11:17 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) (cor-correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > 90:721.1 > > maNc^hu'-sabe, naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki > => sage => s^age > > grizzly-bear claws their hands some if you have Lovely. My correction was wrong, too. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 06:52:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 00:52:16 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (more body parts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have here some additional body parts, working a bit differently from the first set. Incidentally here and before I was including all available examples, eliminating only certain repetitions of the same example or nearly the same example in the same or nearly the same story. I finally omitted a few additional examples of ppa'=dhaN 'the head'. a 'arm' Usually =khe, singular or plural, but there are some examples of =the with particular kinds of plurality. 90:421.15 a'=khe u'=i his arm he was wounded (in) 90:436.19 a'=khe e'dhaN=dha=i the arm he was hit [on his] 90:81.20 a'=khe agdhaN'kkaNhaN kkaN'ttaN=bi=egaN, her arms on either side she having been tied (by) uba'ttihedha=bi= thaN=ama she was hanging up PROGR 90:422.6 a'=the akki'dha ubdaN' his arms both I held him by 90:428.2 ttas^a'ge a'=the deer claw (rattles) their (individually single) hands udhaNwakhidha=bi=egaN having made them hold them in ni'tta '(outer) ear' Here the article is =the, but, unfortunately, this is the only example of an article with the 'outer ear' word. 90:136.12 ni'tta aN'ma=the the other ear naNghi'de '(inner) ear, facility of hearing' Here the article is also =the with the 'inner ear' word, but we can't really argue for any clear comparaiblity with the previous word, and only singular or abstract references are available. 90:246.9 naNghi'de=the ukki'dhabi=egN his (inner) ear he spoke into 90:774.4 naNghi'de=the adhiN=ga your inner ear keep it (in) hiN' 'body hair, fur' Three different articles, =dhaN, =ge, and =khe. 90:151.11 hiN'=dhaN bibi'za=bi=ama their hair they having rubbed dry 90:237.1 ppe' uttaN'na=di hiN'=ge naa'=z^ida=bi=egaN forehead in the middle the hairs being yellowed by heat 90:258.9 hiN'=khe bdhu'ga=xti kkigdhi'hedaN=bi=ama his hair quite all he made it bristle up ppahiN' 'hair' Here =khe, but, unfortunately, only the single example. 90:210.14 e'gidhe ppahiN'=khe iN?idha=ga then the hair give it back to me Here ppahiN' refers to a detached scalp lock. naNz^i'=ha 'head hair, skin of head with attached hair (scalp)' The =dhaN article seems to imply part of the whole extent of the scalp. The =khe article seems to mean the whole scalp. The =ge article seems to mean several head hairs or several scalps. 90:181.4 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN zi=xc^iu akh=ama his hair very yellow he was one 90:582.6 tte=nu'ga naNz^i'=ha=dhaN udhaN' buffalo bull his head hair he seized These first two examples of naNz^i'=ha=dhaN above don't seem to be properly "partitive." 90:591.16 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN i'dhiskiski=xti=aN=bi=ama his hair it was very tangled (Dorsey renders dhaN as 'the (part)'. I believe in this case he means a particular patch or area within the whole head of hair, an idenfiying characteristic of the Orphan.) 90:597.6 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN=s^ti naNxdhaN'z^e=xti=aN=ama his hair too it was very tangled (Dorsey again renders dhaN as 'the (part)'.) 90:615.16 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN part of her hair 90:625.15 ni'as^iNga naNz^i'=ha=dhaN=s^ti he'be dhiza'=bi=egaN person his scalp too part taking it (along) 90:593.2 naNz^i'=ha=khe=s^ti u'daN=xti=bi=gaN his hair too as it was very good 90:601.7 WahaN'dhis^ige naNz^i'=ha=ge=s^te=waN naxdhaN'z^e=xti khi'=ama Orphan even his hair(s) very tangled he returned 90:298.14 naNz^i'=ha=ge bdhu'ga maa'=waxaN=bi=ama the hair (scalps) all he cut it off of [the four of] them ppa' 'head' With =dhaN, singular or plural. With =the in some cases of sets of multiple heads. With =ge for several heads of different individuals. 90:20.6 ppa'=dhaN the head 90:26.15 ppa'=dhaN my head 90:282.16 gagi'gighe, ppa'=dhaN maNs^i' he coiled himself up, his head high 90:314.13 ppa'=dhaN sippa'=the dhinaNha your head his toe he kicks you aside (with) dhe'=dhe=s^tes^te=waN even if he sends [even if he suddenly] 90:245.19 ppa'=xti=dhaN ihe'=dha=bi=egaN the very head having laid it on (i.e., whacked it with) 90:592.10 ppa'=xti=dhaN e'dhaNbe only the head was visible 90:232.14 Na'daN is^ta' ppa'=the z^u'=gdhe ga'gha=ga. thus eye its nose with it make Dhibdha's^ka=xc^i=ga ppa'=dhaN Flatten out its head 90:428.9 Ppa'dhiNgahige ppa'=dhaN e'dhaN=dha=i Pawnee Chief the head they hit (shot) him in 90:463.3 ppa'=dhaN e'dhaN=dha=i the head they hit him on 90:560.14 ppa'=dhaN dhiza'=bi=egaN the head having removed 90:561.2 ppa'=dhaN uxpa'dhe=ama the head fell off 90:265.18 ppa'=dhaN their heads 90:61.12 (572.1 572.6 similar) ttaNga'=xti=ma ppa'=dhaN u'dhaN=bi=egaN the big ones their heads holding them by 90:61.12 ppa'=dhaN wadhi'xaNxaN=bi=egaN their heads pulling them off 90:111.8 Kki WahaN'dhis^ige=akha ppa'=dhaN a'kkidha=bi=ama And the Orphan its heads he attacked 90:111.12 E'gidhe ppa'=dhaN wiN gasa'=bi=ama Finally one of the heads he cut it off 90:111.15 Kki ppa'=the i'dha=bi=ama and the (seven) heads (of the Seven-Headed Monster) he found 90:111.16 Kki e'tti=i=the=di waN'gidhe ?iN akhi'=bi=ama ppa'=the and to his lodge all carrying he came the heads 90:122.15 ppa'=dhaN the (two) heads (of seven) 90:123.11 ppa'=the the (three) heads (of seven) 90:249.10 ppa'=ge wa'thaN maNdhiN'=tta=ama their (various) heads treading on them he will walk 90:427.16 ppa'=ge wakkaN'thaN s^aN'ge=ma dhisnu'=wakhidha=i their heads tying them to their horses they made them be dragged naNs^ki' 'head' Consistently with =dhaN, whether singular or plural. 90:77.3 naNs^ki'=dhaN hiN' dhiNge'=xti=aN He'ga his head feathers it had none at all Buzzard 90:91.6 naNs^ki'=dhaN gaxdhi' idhe'dha=bi=ama his head he smashed in he sent it (i.e., he did it suddenly) 90:180.13 naNs^ki'=dhaN his head 90:619.7 naNs^ki=dhaN=s^te=waN even his head 90:433.3 naNs^ki'=dhaN sa'ba=z^i=xti maN'zeppe=z^iNga i'thiN=bi=ama his head very suddenly small axe he hit him with 90:389.5 naNs^ki'=dhaN our heads From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 07:19:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 01:19:20 -0600 Subject: Summary for OP Bodypart Classes Message-ID: Cutting to the chase and omitting the examples: a 'arm' Usually =khe, singular or plural. There are some examples of =the with particular kinds of plurality, specifically, once with 'both the arms' (the pattern Rory and I would have expected with pairs and sets), and once with '(one each of) their several arms'. ni'tta '(outer) ear' Here the article is =the, but, unfortunately, this is the only example of an article with the 'outer ear' word. naNghi'de '(inner) ear, facility of hearing' Here the article is also =the with the 'inner ear' word, but we can't really argue for any clear comparaiblity with the previous word, and only singular or abstract references are available. hiN' 'body hair, fur' Three different articles, =dhaN, =ge, and =khe. While =ge refers to individual hairs, the difference between =dhaN and =khe is not clear, unless it follows the principle with naNz^i'ha. ppahiN' 'hair' Here =khe, but, unfortunately, only the single example. naNz^i'=ha 'head hair, skin of head with attached hair (scalp)' The =dhaN article seems to imply part of the whole extent of the scalp. The =khe article seems to mean the whole scalp. The =ge article seems to mean several head hairs or several scalps. ppa' 'head' With =dhaN, singular or plural. With =the in some cases of sets of multiple heads (again Rory's expected pattern). With =ge for several heads of different individuals. If there is a general pattern of usage it seems to be: - One particular article =dhaN, =the, =khe with singular or plural references (where a body has more than one part of a kind). One might want to go back to the examples and notice the case of ppa'=the 'the nose' vs. ppa'=dhaN 'the head'. - =the with specially marked sets of multiple parts (all the heads, both arms, just one arm from each individual). - =dhaN with part of an extensive feature like 'hair'. - =khe with all of an extensive feature like 'hair'. - =ge with less marked cases of plurality resulting from multiple bodies. In some ways this is just a bodypart specialization of the usual pattern: - dhaN - compact, individuated, partitive - the - extended, series (if noted) - khe - surface, zone or totality (if noted) - ge - unconfigured set, multiple individuals There are clearly some details of the contrasts that are not simply captured. For example, why z^i'be=khe? On the other hand, =khe does sometimes seem to be "in a horizontal line" or "supine" or "dead" and =the does seem to be sometimes "vertical" or "stacked, piled, put into a confining container." In some cases it is natural to point out configurational changes due to plurality, but in other cases this is ignored. From rankin at ku.edu Thu May 13 14:40:27 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:40:27 -0500 Subject: reduplication Message-ID: Randy, What is true for John's Omaha examples is also true for Kansa. I did not get a lot of reduplication, but when I did, it seemed mostly to signal iterative aspect. Only root CV sequences are reduplicated. The verb 'say' may follow the Omaha pattern in Kaw -- I'm not sure. If it does, it's for the same reason as in Omaha, namely that the inflected forms have become opaque and second person /$-/ is mistaken for part of the root. (The re-analyzed and reduplicated 'say' forms are the ones that give those wonderful examples in Dakota like "Oompapa" /uNphapha/ which should mean something like 'I keep telling the two of us'. Here, 1st person /p-ha/ is from underlying *w-ha 'I-say'.) I can try to find some examples if you like. Bob ************************ > I have little or no information on Dhegiha, Winnebago and Chiwere. > How does reduplication work in these languages? > Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 21:38:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:38:15 -0600 Subject: reduplication In-Reply-To: <009901c438f8$4e90bdd0$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What is true for John's Omaha examples is also true for Kansa. I did > not get a lot of reduplication, but when I did, it seemed mostly to > signal iterative aspect. Looking at just the reduplication examples that had turned up accidentally in the bodypart gender examples, I'd have to say that an iterative sense is at least as common as the distributive gloss I suggested. The 'greasy hands' example is probably distributive. The 'tangled hair' example could be taken as completive, i.e., 'thoroughly tangled'. These chance examples weren't particularly instructive as to morphology, but one thing I think they did convey well was that you could find a fair number of examples of reduplication even in a small sample from the Dorsey corpus and that they were used in a fairly spontaneous way, i.e., they were not just a few lexicalized fossil forms. At the same time they are not integrated into the grammar of verb stem plurality as they are in Dakotan. It's a deriational device, but though pervasive and probably productive, not so frequent as to be particularly noticeable. I think most students of Dhegiha take them to be perhaps less common than they really are. I don't recall any examples of reduplicated numerals in Dhegiha such as there are in Dakotan. A pity, since the Dakota forms are quite instructive! From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 14 20:34:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:34:46 -0500 Subject: reduplication Message-ID: Re: John's comment of 'distributive/iterative' uses of redup in Omaha. It's probably important to check on the (inherent?) aspect of the verb in question in each instance as a part of determining the semantics of reduplication in Omaha and other Dhegiha. It may well be different for active and stative verbs at the very least. I'm not fond of the "accomplishments", "achievements", etc. classification because of semantic overlap among the categories, but it might provide further classification. Randy ought to have an interesting paper. I'm eager to see what he's learned. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 14 20:44:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:44:44 -0600 Subject: reduplication In-Reply-To: <00d701c439f2$f7eba160$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > It's probably important to check on the (inherent?) aspect of the verb in > question in each instance as a part of determining the semantics of > reduplication in Omaha and other Dhegiha. I think you're right. I've often wished I could figure out a way to search for reduplications the DOrsey texts. It is possible to search for words with adjacent repetitions of two characters or more, though not with the tools I've been using lately! But even in the list of body part examples I turned up bibize 'squeeze dry', in which I eventually realized that the first bi is the PRESS instrumental. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 01:53:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:53:10 -0600 Subject: OP khe-Gender Message-ID: Here is a list of words with khe (KE'2 in the SIouan Archives, for k) following them in about the first two hundred pages of the Dorsey texts. It may seem puzzling that z^'ibe 'lower leg' isn't in this list. This is because it occurs first after page 200! What appears from this list is that a number of perhaps surprising categories of things are khe-nouns. If I were more widely read in classificatory systems, it might be that I would be less surprised. As students of Dhegiha are already aware =khe is used frequently with dead or (perhaps involuntarily or unnaturally) supine animate nouns. I think it was Catherine who suggested that perhaps we should just start adding khe to the list of animate articles. It also seems to be regularly used with "long" body parts, even if they might typically be thought of as oriented vertically, like legs. So far the main body part I know of with which =the is used is 'ears' (inner and outer, which are quite different things in Omaha-Ponca). I havne't looked yet to see if there are others. (The =the article is used, of course, with pairs or other multiple body parts, though, as we have seen, only in certain rather marked contexts.) The =khe article is used with long tools, like 'bows' and 'arrows' and weapons generally, as well as 'bridles'. It is also used with containers, like 'bags' and 'bowls' and 'quivers' and 'deep hollows'. It is regularly used with 'hills', but not exclusively, e.g., we also find ppahe'=dhaN. It is used with 'edges'. Also with some things that might be considered expanses, like 'snow', 'sky', 'cloud', and 'ground', and maybe 'sand' and 'water' and 'ice' and 'thicket'. It is used with some less obvious things like 'deed', and 'slice' and 'food'. a' 'arm' a'dhiN 'ridge' baghu' 'peak (mountain)' dhie' 'side, flank' ha'az^iNga 'cord' he' 'horn' hedhu'baz^aN 'swing' hiNxpe' 'fine feather' huhu' 'fish' (dead or at last caught) i'e 'words' iN'?e 'stone' (hmm - also =the - maybe plural only - and =dhaN) is^ta'ha 'eyelid' kkaN'ha 'border, edge' ma' 'snow' maN 'arrow' maNc^hu' '(dead) grizzly bear' maN'de 'bow' maN'ghe 'sky' maNxpi' 'cloud' maN'z^iha 'quiver' maN'zedhahe 'bridle' maN'zewethiN 'sword' ma's^aN 'feather' naN'de 'side of the tent' ni(N)'gha 'stomach' ni'as^iNga ppia'z^i 'bad man (dead)' ni'as^iNga sighdha=i 'person's trail (tracks)' niN 'water' niN'de 'cooked stuff' nini'ba 'pipe' niN'ttaNga 'large body of water' nu'ghe 'ice' nu'z^iNga 'boy (dead, lying)' ppah'e 'hill' ppe'z^e 'grass' ppiza' 'sand' s^aN'ttaNga '(dead) wolf' s^iN'gaz^iNga 'infant (lying)' si' 'foot' si'gdhe 'footprint' sihi' 'foot' siN'de 'tail' snede=a'xti=s^naN 'what is usually really long' (foot) ttaN'de 'ground' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' tta'xti '(dead) deer' tte' 'buffalo meat' (dead buffalo?) ttemaN'ge 'buffalo breast' ttez^e'ga 'buffalo thigh (upper leg)' tti' 'lodge (thrown down, i.e., taken down)' tti' 'lodges (collective)' tti'ha a'kkibesaN 'tentskin fold' u'?e 'field' uc^hi'z^e 'thicket' uhaN'ge 'beginning, end (margin)' umiN'z^e 'couch, bed' u's?u 'slice' u's^kaN 'deed' uxdhu'xa 'deep hollow' uxpe' z^iNga 'small bowl' u'z^iha 'bag' wa?u' 'woman (lying, bound)' wac^hi's^ka 'creek' wadha'the 'food' wahi' 'bone' wahu'ttaNdhiN 'gun' wakkaN'da(gi) '(dead) water deity' wakku' 'awl' wappe' 'weapon' we's?a 'snake' xa'de tti 'grass lodge' xdhabe' 'tree' (presumably fallen) z^aN' 'wood' z^aN'z^iNga 'stick' z^e' 'penis' z^u'ga 'body' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 02:53:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:53:11 -0600 Subject: OP the-Gender Nouns Message-ID: I repeated the 200 page experiment for the-nouns. I may not have caught all of the examples in this span as it is sometimes hard to distinguish 'when' and 'evidential' uses quickly and I was trying to avoid these. I also omitted some nominalizations, more or less complex, and things like 'the first' and 'the second', etc. The body part list, excluding more or less clear plural uses, includes 'hand', 'mouth', and, of course, 'ear'. As far as manufactured objects or tools, we have mostly parts of things, e.g., 'arrow heads' and 'head of bow', although in some cases the reference is clearly plural, and perhaps we have =the as plural of =khe. Note that in the usual progression we think of =khe as a plural relative to =the. Perhaps in this category we have he'be 'piece'. Many things listed seem to be plural or collected, but this is clearly not the only kind of =the example. Quite a number of thins that also appear as =khe nouns appear as =the nouns, not necessarily with a clear plural sense, e.g., 'cord' and 'water'. Time periods, e.g., seasons, seem to be =the nouns. Certain physical features of the landscape are =the, e.g., 'spring' and 'cliff'. The main cases where vertical vs. horizontal seem to come into play are with 'lodge' and 'tree'. dhe'ghegakku 'drum' dhe'ze 'tongues' ha'z^iNga 'cord' he'be 'piece' hi'gaN 'myth' hu' 'voice' i' 'mouth' i'e 'speech, words' iN'?e 'stone(s?)' ma'dhe 'winter' maN' 'arrows' maNa' 'cliff' maNde'ppa 'head of bow' maN'hiNsi 'arrow heads' maNnaN's^ude 'dust from treading the ground' maN'sa 'arrow shafts' mas^aN 'feathers (a collected bunch)' maxu'de 'ashes' naNbe' 'hand' nihaN'ga 'spring (of water)' niN' 'water' ni'tta 'ear' nu'ge 'summer' ppa 'heads (a set of several from a decapitated monster)' ppai' 'points' ppa'ze 'evenings' ppe'de 'fire' s^kaN' 'deed' sigdhe' 'trail (footprints?)' sihi' 'feet' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' tti' 'lodge' tti'z^ebe, ttiz^e'be 'door' u?u'de 'hole' u'haN 'cooking' umaN'(?)e 'provisions' umiN'z^e 'couch, bed' u's?u 'slices' u's^kaN 'deed(s?)' uxpe' 'bowl' wa?aN' 'song' wa?iN' 'pack' wa'dhaha 'clothing' wadhatha=i 'what they ate (a piece)' was^iN' 'fat' xdhabe' 'tree' z^aN' 'tree' z^aNxdhu'?a 'hollow tree' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 17:03:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:03:23 -0600 Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice Message-ID: I've just received a diagnostic email message from a user's email service indicating that a message from the list to them was rejected because it seemed like spam. As far as I know, in this case the user didn't receive any notification at all. The posting was one of the lists of Omaha-Ponca nouns by gender, so Net Siouan was at fault. It also occurs to me that the technical word for the male sex organ was one of the glosses in that list. Hmm. (Make note to resort to euphemisms in the future.) If I notice any of these rejections I will let the beneficiary know, but an awful lot of the list-diagnostic mail of this nature I get consists of either (a) letters indicating that a nonsubscriber was trying to post spam or viruses to the list (more attempted spam than actual postings these days) or (b) letters indicating that a subscriber's mailbox is full. Now, as to these latter messages, they are particularly common with certain users and certain free mail services. It is possible to set the list to automatically unsubscribe users whose mail is bounced as undeliverable, but so far I've felt that this would undully penalize subscribers who need to use free email services. Not to mention I'm not sure under what conditions the automatic deletion takes affect. Anybody's mailbox might be down for a few days from time to time. The down side of this is that I don't read the diagnostic mailings from the list server as attentatively as I once did. So, to make this all more manageable, I may at some point elect to unsubscribe manually those users who are particularly consistent about full-mailbox bounces. The awkward thing is that I have no way to notify them that they are deleted. So, if you fall into this category and you think that the list has been awful quite recently, you should check the archive at http://www.linguistlist.org or drop me a line. I will be happy to reinstate interested parties with no hard feelings, but I get one diagnostic message per posting per full mailbox and the cummulative effect at times is not unlike the Chinese water torture if continued over several weeks. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 17:08:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:08:25 -0600 Subject: OP khe-Gender (resent) Message-ID: This is the euphemized version of a post that even my system classified as spam. Let me know if you don't get it. (Grin.) Here is a list of words with khe (KE'2 in the SIouan Archives, for k) following them in about the first two hundred pages of the Dorsey texts. It may seem puzzling that z^'ibe 'lower leg' isn't in this list. This is because it occurs first after page 200! What appears from this list is that a number of perhaps surprising categories of things are khe-nouns. If I were more widely read in classificatory systems, it might be that I would be less surprised. As students of Dhegiha are already aware =khe is used frequently with dead or (perhaps involuntarily or unnaturally) supine animate nouns. I think it was Catherine who suggested that perhaps we should just start adding khe to the list of animate articles. It also seems to be regularly used with "long" body parts, even if they might typically be thought of as oriented vertically, like legs. So far the main body part I know of with which =the is used is 'ears' (inner and outer, which are quite different things in Omaha-Ponca). I havne't looked yet to see if there are others. (The =the article is used, of course, with pairs or other multiple body parts, though, as we have seen, only in certain rather marked contexts.) The =khe article is used with long tools, like 'bows' and 'arrows' and weapons generally, as well as 'bridles'. It is also used with containers, like 'bags' and 'bowls' and 'quivers' and 'deep hollows'. It is regularly used with 'hills', but not exclusively, e.g., we also find ppahe'=dhaN. It is used with 'edges'. Also with some things that might be considered expanses, like 'snow', 'sky', 'cloud', and 'ground', and maybe 'sand' and 'water' and 'ice' and 'thicket'. It is used with some less obvious things like 'deed', and 'slice' and 'food'. a' 'arm' a'dhiN 'ridge' baghu' 'peak (mountain)' dhie' 'side, flank' ha'az^iNga 'cord' he' 'horn' hedhu'baz^aN 'swing' hiNxpe' 'fine feather' huhu' 'fish' (dead or at last caught) i'e 'words' iN'?e 'stone' (hmm - also =the - maybe plural only - and =dhaN) is^ta'ha 'eyelid' kkaN'ha 'border, edge' ma' 'snow' maN 'arrow' maNc^hu' '(dead) grizzly bear' maN'de 'bow' maN'ghe 'sky' maNxpi' 'cloud' maN'z^iha 'quiver' maN'zedhahe 'bridle' maN'zewethiN 'sword' ma's^aN 'feather' naN'de 'side of the tent' ni(N)'gha 'stomach' ni'as^iNga ppia'z^i 'bad man (dead)' ni'as^iNga sighdha=i 'person's trail (tracks)' niN 'water' niN'de 'cooked stuff' nini'ba 'pipe' niN'ttaNga 'large body of water' nu'ghe 'ice' nu'z^iNga 'boy (dead, lying)' ppah'e 'hill' ppe'z^e 'grass' ppiza' 'sand' s^aN'ttaNga '(dead) wolf' s^iN'gaz^iNga 'infant (lying)' si' 'foot' si'gdhe 'footprint' sihi' 'foot' siN'de 'tail' snede=a'xti=s^naN 'what is usually really long' (foot) ttaN'de 'ground' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' tta'xti '(dead) deer' tte' 'buffalo meat' (dead buffalo?) ttemaN'ge 'buffalo [chest area]' ttez^e'ga 'buffalo thigh (upper leg)' tti' 'lodge (thrown down, i.e., taken down)' tti' 'lodges (collective)' tti'ha a'kkibesaN 'tentskin fold' u'?e 'field' uc^hi'z^e 'thicket' uhaN'ge 'beginning, end (margin)' umiN'z^e 'couch, bed' u's?u 'slice' u's^kaN 'deed' uxdhu'xa 'deep hollow' uxpe' z^iNga 'small bowl' u'z^iha 'bag' wa?u' 'woman (lying, bound)' wac^hi's^ka 'creek' wadha'the 'food' wahi' 'bone' wahu'ttaNdhiN 'gun' wakkaN'da(gi) '(dead) water deity' wakku' 'awl' wappe' 'weapon' we's?a 'snake' xa'de tti 'grass lodge' xdhabe' 'tree' (presumably fallen) z^aN' 'wood' z^aN'z^iNga 'stick' z^e' '[male generative organ]' z^u'ga 'body' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed May 19 00:55:47 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:55:47 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I decided to wait till I had checked with the speakers again before replying to this thread, and by now John has gone far beyond me! >> Rory said: >> Thus, one leg would be /khe/, "elongate", but both legs would be /the/, >> "the set". One eye would be /dhaN/, "globular", but both eyes would be >> /the/. A single hand, however, is still /the/, I suppose because all >> the fingers composing it are regarded as a set. John commented: > I hadn't realized that legs were horizontal, which is sort of interesting > in itself. Elongate, not horizontal. But I think John and Catherine have already taken that position. When I first asked the speakers about body parts a couple of months ago, it seemed they consistently preferred /tHe/ for a set. When I brought the discussion around to eyes, I tried the idea of 'cross-eyed'. Their first response was /iNs^ta' dhoN/ (are crossed). I asked if you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ (are crossed), and they said it sounded better that way. This past week, after John's posting, I asked again. This time they flatly denied that you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ for human eyes; it must be /dhoN/ even in the plural. So for 'cross-eyed' we now have: iNs^ta' dhoN xa'wiN iNs^ta' [dhoN] dhixa'wiN "s/he is cross-eyed" "s/he crossed his/her eyes" (stative verb form) (active verb form) For animals, however, we can say /iNs^ta' tHe/, as in the following example they gave me: iNs^ta' tHe unaa'goNba "their eyes light up" (referring to the eyes of coyotes at night in the headlights) With legs, they agreed that it could be either /tHe/ or /kHe/ depending on how you were using it. But in specific examples, they seemed to use these to distinguish the set from the singular: z^ega' tHe z^ega' kHe "both legs" "one leg" z^ega' tHe oNni'e z^ega' kHe oNni'e "my legs hurt" "my leg hurts" z^ega' tHe dhihoN' z^ega' kHe dhihoN' "elevate both legs" "elevate one leg" Tangentially to this inquiry, I learned some nuances to the 'leg' terms. It seems that /z^ega'/ is the term for the whole (mammalian) leg. Previously, I had thought it just referred to the thigh. Fletcher and La Flesche have either /z^i'be/ or /hi'/ for 'leg'. Our speakers do not seem to recognize /hi'/ as an independent term for 'leg' at all, though it is still good for 'trunk', 'stalk' or 'stem'. They consider /z^i'be/ to be 'leg', especially the front from the knee down, or in other words the shin. The shin bone itself is /noN'xpahi/. The metatarsal segment, the part of the foot between the ankle and the toes, is /sihi'/. On horses, this seems to hold for front and back legs: the entire leg is /z^ega'/, while the metatarsal or metacarpal segment down to the hoof is /sihi'/. For a /wagdhi's^ka/, the class of crawling creatures that includes insects and lizards, the whole leg is /sihi'/. Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed May 19 14:56:49 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:56:49 -0500 Subject: comparative dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In working on North American ethnonyms (and some other words of native American origin) for the OED, I've often benefited from the treasure of unpublished comparative lexical material (and wisdom) that exist for most language families. Most recently, it was the terminology of wild cats (as it relates to 'Erie') in Iroquoian, but it's also been 'Mandan' in Siouan and 'Peoria' in Algonquian on the "large" end of the scale and 'camas' in Sahaptian on the "small," as well as Chinookan and Athapaskan and Muskogean... My queries about plans for comparative dictionaries are usually met with the same plaintive response: "it's a long-standing personal goal of mine and of others, but there's nothing likely in the near future." There must be many hurdles to such a project: two that come immediately to mind are money, and the natural (and laudable) academic inclination not to publish until one's research is "complete." Can those with experience of the Comparative Siouan Dictionary project (and any similar undertakings) comment briefly on the nature of those obstacles and what might be done to surmount or obviate them? The Web would certainly facilitate the publication of comparative dictionaries "in progress," even one word at a time, and the availability of even a limited amount of material would have the effect of encouraging other contributions and creating a basis for further work. I hope I'll be excused for my temerity in raising this subject: ignorance of the practical difficulties makes it easier! Thanks for any thoughts, Alan From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed May 19 15:44:54 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:44:54 +0100 Subject: comparative dictionaries Message-ID: Alan: As someone who is also an Americanist and who has also worked for the OED, I can say that there is a lot of comparative lexiocgraphical material out there which is unpublished and much of this seems fair set to remain so. I know of comparative lexica of Sahaptian, Uto-Aztecan, Muskogean and Tanoan whch are as yet unpublished. David Pentland has an ongoing comparative Algonquian dictionary. I've also seen fragments of an early version of the CSD. For some families deep inter-branch fissures mean that comparative dictionaries could be of limited scale - Caddoan, Iroquoian and arguably Algonquian if you inciroprate Blackfoot (and, if you like, the Catawba-Woccon wing of Greater Siouan) would fit here. For myself, I wish people would publish comparative Swadesh lists of some of these languages - at least then one has a start towards a comparative dictionary. Anthony >>> ahartley at d.umn.edu 19/05/2004 15:56:49 >>> In working on North American ethnonyms (and some other words of native American origin) for the OED, I've often benefited from the treasure of unpublished comparative lexical material (and wisdom) that exist for most language families. Most recently, it was the terminology of wild cats (as it relates to 'Erie') in Iroquoian, but it's also been 'Mandan' in Siouan and 'Peoria' in Algonquian on the "large" end of the scale and 'camas' in Sahaptian on the "small," as well as Chinookan and Athapaskan and Muskogean... My queries about plans for comparative dictionaries are usually met with the same plaintive response: "it's a long-standing personal goal of mine and of others, but there's nothing likely in the near future." There must be many hurdles to such a project: two that come immediately to mind are money, and the natural (and laudable) academic inclination not to publish until one's research is "complete." Can those with experience of the Comparative Siouan Dictionary project (and any similar undertakings) comment briefly on the nature of those obstacles and what might be done to surmount or obviate them? The Web would certainly facilitate the publication of comparative dictionaries "in progress," even one word at a time, and the availability of even a limited amount of material would have the effect of encouraging other contributions and creating a basis for further work. I hope I'll be excused for my temerity in raising this subject: ignorance of the practical difficulties makes it easier! Thanks for any thoughts, Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 16:36:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:36:16 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I decided to wait till I had checked with the speakers again before > replying to this thread, and by now John has gone far beyond me! It is, of course, delightful that you can do this! > Elongate, not horizontal. But I think John and Catherine have > already taken that position. Elgonate certainly seems to describe the usage better with body parts and maybe tools (or perhaps artifacts would be a better word). > When I first asked the speakers about body parts a couple of months > ago, it seemed they consistently preferred /tHe/ for a set. When I > brought the discussion around to eyes, I tried the idea of 'cross-eyed'. > Their first response was /iNs^ta' dhoN/ (are crossed). I think the difference here is subtle, and that /the/ for sets (tHe in the Macy Schools orthgoraphy, with H representing superscript h) works when either the settedness is quite important or when it is a case of an organized set across multiple individuals - like the eyes of the coyotes below. I think in this case =the works a lot like =ma for animates. But =ge can occur in some cases for multiple body parts, possibly to indicate lack of organization - no long part of body, or selected randomly from the whole number available. Normally when referring to one or both (all) of a bodypart from a particular individual one uses the appropriate "singular" article, which seems to be mostly =dhaN (thoN) 'non-elogate' vs. =khe (kHe) 'elongate', though a few body parts seem to use =the (tHe). I'd wonder if you couldn't get i(N)s^ta'=the 'eyes' in cases like 'he was blind in both eyes' or 'both his eyes were itching a lot' or maybe 'one of his eyes was light colored' vs. 'both of his eyes were light colored'. But the difficulty of fishing with examples like this, though, is that it can deaden the sensibilities of the speakers - everything sounds right, even if it isn't - and/or back them into insisting on a certain perception of the situation among several that might be possible. When either of these situations arises you get cases of a speaker allowing or insisting on version a one day, and then insisting on version b another. In this particular case, it's possible that without just the right, rather marked conception of the situation one might normally still use =dhaN. It's safer to provide lots of examples taken from some sort of neutral source or to watch for examples in context and then ask about those. > I asked if you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ (are crossed), and they said it > sounded better that way. This past week, after John's posting, I asked > again. This time they flatly denied that you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ > for human eyes; it must be /dhoN/ even in the plural. So for > 'cross-eyed' we now have: > > iNs^ta' dhoN xa'wiN iNs^ta' [dhoN] dhixa'wiN > "s/he is cross-eyed" "s/he crossed his/her eyes" > (stative verb form) (active verb form) Eyes from one individual. > For animals, however, we can say /iNs^ta' tHe/, as in the following > example they gave me: > > iNs^ta' tHe unaa'goNba > "their eyes light up" > (referring to the eyes of coyotes at night in the headlights) Eyes from multiple individuals, real or hypothetical. What would happen if speaking of humans generally or in a group and saying 'they squint or blink their eyes in bright sun'. > With legs, they agreed that it could be either /tHe/ or /kHe/ > depending on how you were using it. But in specific examples, > they seemed to use these to distinguish the set from the singular: > > z^ega' tHe z^ega' kHe > "both legs" "one leg" Which is where I'm coming from with my "both eyes" examples. However, the whole predicate has to make sense with the conception both and that might vary with the language. Even so, in English "both eyes were crossed" might be a bit moot, since, while the irregularity is esentially in one eye, the perception is that the alignment of both eyes - the whole gaze - is affected. > Tangentially to this inquiry, I learned some nuances to the 'leg' terms. > It seems that /z^ega'/ is the term for the whole (mammalian) leg. > Previously, I had thought it just referred to the thigh. Fletcher and > La Flesche have either /z^i'be/ or /hi'/ for 'leg'. I think Dorsey often specifies that z^i'be refers to the lower leg, though he never actually says 'shin'. > Our speakers do not seem to recognize /hi'/ as an independent term for > 'leg' at all, though it is still good for 'trunk', 'stalk' or 'stem'. I wonder if this might be different between Omaha and Ponca (or even among a really large group of Omaha speakers). > They consider /z^i'be/ to be 'leg', especially the front from the knee > down, or in other words the shin. The shin bone itself is /noN'xpahi/. > The metatarsal segment, the part of the foot between the ankle and the > toes, is /sihi'/. I've been wondering about sihi', which turns up in the Dorsey texts. > On horses, this seems to hold for front and back legs: the entire leg is > /z^ega'/, while the metatarsal or metacarpal segment down to the hoof is > /sihi'/. For a /wagdhi's^ka/, the class of crawling creatures that > includes insects and lizards, the whole leg is /sihi'/. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 16:48:35 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:48:35 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I decided to wait till I had checked with the speakers again before > replying to this thread, and by now John has gone far beyond me! A rather flattering appraisal. Actually, if it hadn't been for you and the others - Ardis, Bob, Catherine - discussing this I'd still be mired deep in complacency. Anyone have any ideas on why 'mouth' or 'hand' should be =the? '(Outer) ears' might, I suppose, be a set, but this doesn't seem to affect 'eyes'. A mouth is a rather complex assembly of lips and teeth, and a hand, like pants, is singular at the top and plural at the bottom. (Mark Twain?) But then why not 'foot'? I wish the Fletcher & LaFlesche body parts list had articles attached! It's begining to be clear that you'd probably have to list articles or something about articles with the nouns in an OP dictionary. There certainly seems to be some degree of conventionality regarding what range of articles you can use with particular nouns and what the implications are of using (each of) them. Some (inanimate) nouns might be dhaN/the/ge or khe/the/ge, others dhaN/the/khe/ge and so on. From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 17:38:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:38:46 -0500 Subject: OP articles. Message-ID: > It's begining to be clear that you'd probably have to list articles or > something about articles with the nouns in an OP dictionary. There > certainly seems to be some degree of conventionality regarding what range > of articles you can use with particular nouns and what the implications > are of using (each of) them. Some (inanimate) nouns might be dhaN/the/ge > or khe/the/ge, others dhaN/the/khe/ge and so on. Nick Evans in Melbourne asked me about this and I really couldn't answer authoritatively. He felt after my presentation that this was a transparent, descriptive, positional system. I said I didn't believe that ANY such system was really semantically natural, whether it involved gender, position, animacy, shape, texture, or whatever. Classificatory systems that see a lot of use (such as articles) *always* get conventionalized to one or another extent. I'd be willing to stick my neck out and claim it as a universal. It's probably worth doing a comprehensive search of the entire set of Dorsey texts for a listing and then comparing and adding to that with the kind of checking Rory is doing. I think it is important to double check all the various experiments with Ponca speakers in Oklahoma in order to eliminate any effects of lessened use of the languages in their respective communities. The forms that match after the 100 year+ separation should be considered established (especially if they agree with Dorsey 1890). The ones that don't match we can wonder about. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 17:54:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:41 -0500 Subject: comparative dictionaries Message-ID: > There must be many hurdles to such a project: two that come immediately > to mind are money, and the natural (and laudable) academic inclination > not to publish until one's research is "complete." Money would be nice, but the chief problem is that two of the three senior editors have essentially left the field entirely. The vast majority of lexical and morphological reconstructions had been done already, but the file is not in physical shape for me to edit. I think it is waiting for volunteers at Colorado to massage it into a Word for Windows file that can be easily edited. I should have time later in the Summer to do clean-up but only if the file is ready for it. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed May 19 18:38:26 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:38:26 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > Anyone have any ideas on why 'mouth' or 'hand' > should be =the? '(Outer) ears' might, I suppose, be a set, but this > doesn't seem to affect 'eyes'. A mouth is a rather complex assembly of > lips and teeth, and a hand, like pants, is singular at the top and > plural at the bottom. (Mark Twain?) But then why not 'foot'? I have the notion that apertures tend to be =tHe. If so, that will explain 'mouth' and '(inner) ear', but checking it against other parts of the anatomy may be awkward. For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set of fingers. Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' in MVS, could its original meaning have been 'finger'? This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, and probably was not derived as 'set of toes'. Rory From parksd at indiana.edu Wed May 19 19:12:32 2004 From: parksd at indiana.edu (Parks, Douglas R.) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:12:32 -0500 Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice Message-ID: John, The message below was sent to my spam quarantine. Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:03 PM To: Siouan List Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice I've just received a diagnostic email message from a user's email service indicating that a message from the list to them was rejected because it seemed like spam. As far as I know, in this case the user didn't receive any notification at all. The posting was one of the lists of Omaha-Ponca nouns by gender, so Net Siouan was at fault. It also occurs to me that the technical word for the male sex organ was one of the glosses in that list. Hmm. (Make note to resort to euphemisms in the future.) If I notice any of these rejections I will let the beneficiary know, but an awful lot of the list-diagnostic mail of this nature I get consists of either (a) letters indicating that a nonsubscriber was trying to post spam or viruses to the list (more attempted spam than actual postings these days) or (b) letters indicating that a subscriber's mailbox is full. Now, as to these latter messages, they are particularly common with certain users and certain free mail services. It is possible to set the list to automatically unsubscribe users whose mail is bounced as undeliverable, but so far I've felt that this would undully penalize subscribers who need to use free email services. Not to mention I'm not sure under what conditions the automatic deletion takes affect. Anybody's mailbox might be down for a few days from time to time. The down side of this is that I don't read the diagnostic mailings from the list server as attentatively as I once did. So, to make this all more manageable, I may at some point elect to unsubscribe manually those users who are particularly consistent about full-mailbox bounces. The awkward thing is that I have no way to notify them that they are deleted. So, if you fall into this category and you think that the list has been awful quite recently, you should check the archive at http://www.linguistlist.org or drop me a line. I will be happy to reinstate interested parties with no hard feelings, but I get one diagnostic message per posting per full mailbox and the cummulative effect at times is not unlike the Chinese water torture if continued over several weeks. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed May 19 19:14:21 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:14:21 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory wrote: > For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set > of fingers. Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' > in MVS, could its original meaning have been 'finger'? > This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, and probably > was not derived as 'set of toes'. I should have added that this hypothesis depends on OP tHe going back approximately as far as MVS. Perhaps John or Bob could comment on whether that's possible? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 19:22:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:22:53 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I have the notion that apertures tend to be =tHe. If so, that will > explain 'mouth' and '(inner) ear', but checking it against other parts > of the anatomy may be awkward. Yes, I can see where it might. Maybe 'navel' would be fairly neutral. 'Nostrils', unfortunately, are a set. > For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set of fingers. > Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' in MVS, could its original > meaning have been 'finger'? This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, > and probably was not derived as 'set of toes'. I think that Bob recently said that forms like *naNaNp-e were originally 'right hand'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 19:32:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:32:49 -0600 Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice In-Reply-To: <52BA675BF5A226458392EB21207B522A966840@iu-mssg-mbx06.exchange.iu.edu> Message-ID: Interesting! Maybe I sound like a Nigerian letter? Please deposit $1000 in small bills in a bank account in my name and I will send you the ill gotten gains of the dictator of your choice! My bowdlerized list of khe body parts was *still* classified as spam at the U of Colorado, though that may have been the "NetSiouan" notation. The safest bet, for everything but sites that delete or return spam before it reaches the user, is to filter list mailings based on the address of the list. It's important to make sure that any spam filters follow any list filters! On Wed, 19 May 2004, Parks, Douglas R. wrote: > The message below was sent to my spam quarantine. (Message on various spam and list policy issues.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 19:42:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:42:46 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Rory wrote: > > For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set > > of fingers. Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' > > in MVS, could its original meaning have been 'finger'? > > This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, and probably > > was not derived as 'set of toes'. > > I should have added that this hypothesis depends on OP tHe going back > approximately as far as MVS. Perhaps John or Bob could comment on > whether that's possible? The morpheme =the is that old or older because there are cognates (used as auxiliaries and positional verbs) across MVS. Use of *the as an article, however, seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. The whole Dhegiha article system seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. It's more likely, though this is not entirely clear, that Dakotan *ki(N) ~ *k(?uN)was an article or something like one in PS as a whole. As I recall there are some similar forms (among others) in Biloxi. Articles are not an area where you expect to see a whole lot of historical stability, however. Repeated reinnovation from the domain of third person pronominals/demonstratives is more the rule. I've always thought Greenberg's article on the origins of gender marking was very interesting in this line, and Bob's article on auxiliaries and positionals is also extremely important, not to mention being especially germain from a Siouan point of view. In any event, if =the indicates sets (among other things) you wouldn't need to be able to appeal to a PMV set meaning for *naNaNp-e to justify a "hand-as-set" analysis within a given Dhegiha language, or so it seems to me. From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed May 19 20:49:24 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:49:24 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Members: Please excuse me for budding in here. Rev. Riggs in his Dakota grammer book explains the Dakota counting system. The hand and fingers are the basis. I don't have the book here, so I can't quote. Thanks, Louie Garcia From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 21:32:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:32:33 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: > 'Nostrils', unfortunately, are a set. Is it possible that there are traces of a DUAL in some of these forms? Things like 'hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc.' that come in pairs are a good place to look for such morphology. Turkish, for example, is reputed to have special morphology for bodypart pairs. Quapaw, as documented by Dorsey, had a dual category among its deictic clusters in addition to singular and plural. I never ran across it in any other Dhegiha dialect, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. > I think that Bob recently said that forms like *naNaNp-e were originally > 'right hand'. Not me. *$a:ke was Proto-Siouan 'hand', while the nape word is strictly MVS. I don't know if there is any known vocabulary for "handedness" or not. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 21:40:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:40:29 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: > > I should have added that this hypothesis depends on OP tHe going back > > approximately as far as MVS. Perhaps John or Bob could comment on > > whether that's possible? > The morpheme =the is that old or older because there are cognates (used as > auxiliaries and positional verbs) across MVS. Use of *the as an article, > however, seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. The whole Dhegiha article > system seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. Definitely. Wi je, Dak. he, etc. are cognate and come from positional verb roots like most such. Mandan /te/ (unaspirated /t/), as described by Kennard 1936 certainly appears to be cognate, and that would get it outside MVS. > It's more likely, though this is > not entirely clear, that Dakotan *ki(N) ~ *k(?uN)was an article or > something like one in PS as a whole. As I recall there are some similar > forms (among others) in Biloxi. Don't know about Biloxi, but Tutelo uses ki or kiN. It's a bit strange, since it's found very seldom other than that. I can't make up my mind whether it's should be reconstructed as an article or as something broader. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed May 19 21:56:48 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:56:48 -0500 Subject: comparative dictionaries In-Reply-To: <011701c43dca$6f7197a0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: > I think it is waiting for volunteers at Colorado > to massage it into a Word for Windows file that can be easily edited. I should > have time later in the Summer to do clean-up but only if the file is ready for > it. I hope it happens! From BARudes at aol.com Wed May 19 23:19:23 2004 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:19:23 EDT Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: In addition to Tutelo and Daktoa, Catawba also shows a deitic kiN (Esaw dialect), kii (Saraw dialect). In the Catawba system, which is based on proximity, kiN/kii can be glossed as 'the, this (in the immediate vicinity)'. The evidence thus seem clear that *kiN must be reconstructed as a deictic element not only for PS, but for PSC as well. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu May 20 03:40:49 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:49 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> I have the notion that apertures tend to be =tHe. If so, that will >> explain 'mouth' and '(inner) ear', but checking it against other parts >> of the anatomy may be awkward. > Yes, I can see where it might. Maybe 'navel' would be fairly neutral. > 'Nostrils', unfortunately, are a set. I've just met with the speakers again. 'Navel' seems, indeed, to be =tHe, as in: dhe'ta tHe oNs^na'be ... moNdhiN'k[a] uz^i' 'my navel is dirty ... it's filled with earth' (and on to further speculation in English about growing beans and potatoes in it) I tried 'nostril', /pa'xdhu/. By this time I had them fairly conditioned with limb words to view =kHe as singular and =tHe as plural. (We're back to allowing =tHe for both eyes, by the way, and a single hand is now =kHe.) When asked directly, it was tentatively decided that a single nostril was =kHe, and both were =tHe. But when I asked how to say: "My nostril is plugged", I got: pa'xdhu tHe oNwoN'ske (oNwoN'ske = u-oN-ske < uske' = 'plugged') This could refer to both nostrils, but I suspect that =tHe is actually correct here for the singular. Attempts to elicit the positionals for the more netherly apertures were inconclusive. One speaker suggested =kHe on the philosophical grounds that a person only had one of the kind, while the other favored =dhoN. The expected =tHe was not offered, and neither were any illustrative sentences. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 20 16:02:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:02:41 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > dhe'ta tHe oNs^na'be ... moNdhiN'k[a] uz^i' > 'my navel is dirty ... it's filled with earth' > (and on to further speculation in English about growing > beans and potatoes in it) This was certainly always my father's contention in regard to dirt behind the ears when supervising bathing. I remember being assured that if I didn't wash better behind my ears I would soon find potatoes growing there. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri May 21 01:23:18 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 20:23:18 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I wish the Fletcher & LaFlesche body parts list had articles attached! With that segue, why don't I start posting the results I've been getting for these parts? A couple of months ago, I started a project of trying to establish the canonical positional for each of the main body parts listed in Fletcher & La Flesche for use with our class in using stative verbs. We ran out of time, the students graduated, and we lost our captive audience. Now I've gone through one short list of body parts twice with the speakers, once around March, and again in the last couple of weeks. The session last night was shadowed by the recent passing of a very prominent member of the Omaha community, who was related to both of our speakers and who had been a major resource and support for them. This may have caused the fatigue factor John mentioned to kick in a bit sooner than usual. ppa' as 'head', takes =dhoN as 'nose', takes =kHe (I believe John's Dorsey research indicated that 'nose' took =tHe. In both the March and the May session, our speakers, or at least the elder one, were definite that 'nose' took =kHe.) noNs^ki' the head excluding the face; the 'jug' as our younger speaker calls it, takes =dhoN, or possibly =kHe. nitta' the external ear, or earlobe. The word usually takes =tHe, but the set is usually referenced. My March notes indicate only =tHe for both of them. Last night, the speakers uncertainly suggested =kHe for a single earlobe. noNxi'de the inner ear in written tradition, or the whole ear according to our speakers. Perhaps the domain of noNxi'de is expanding at the expense of nitta', which is moving to the periphery. This term apparently always takes =tHe. iNde' the face proper, excluding the noNs^ki' and the ears. This seems to take =dhoN, though I have an optional =kHe listed in my March notes. ppe' the forehead, or 'bumper' as our younger speaker often calls it. This takes =kHe, as in: Ppe' kHe oNni'e. "My forehead hurts." iNs^ta' 'eye', takes =dhoN at least in the singular. Sets of eyes, especially of animals, may take =tHe. noNz^i'ha the mane of hair on the human head. I wasn't able to pin this down last night, but in March I was told that the positional was normally =dhoN, but that it could be =kHe if it was long and hanging. i' 'mouth', takes =tHe. I believe =tHe is probably the normal classifier for an aperture. hi' 'tooth' or 'teeth'. This normally takes kHe, in reference to the (linear) row of teeth. The positional for a single tooth is less clear. In March, I thought we had decided that a single tooth was =tHe, but last night after a philosophical struggle and a cartoon picture of myself with only one snaggle tooth, the speakers held out that even a single tooth was still =kHe. nu'de 'throat', or more generally 'neck'. (It seems that ppa'hi refers specifically to the back of the neck, or nape.) This seems to take =kHe. z^u'ga 'body', takes =kHe. moN'ge 'chest'. I have both =kHe and =tHe in my notes, possibly due to a difference between the speakers. The elder one seems to prefer =kHe. moNse' 'breast'. My March notes have =tHe (in contrast to moN'ze kHe), but last night we came down to =kHe after aesthetic objections to the alternate term 'udder' were heard. ni'xa 'belly'. In March it was =tHe, but last night we got =kHe. i(N)kHe'di 'shoulders'. According to our speakers, this is the whole contiguous area of the shoulders together with the upper back with the shoulder blades. Their conception of it vacillated between singular and plural. Both singular =kHe and set =tHe seem to be allowed. The traditional spelling of this term is iNk(H)ede, but our speakers seem to pronounce it ikHe'di. (I'm not sure if the k is aspirated or not.) noN'kka 'back'. According to our speakers, this is the back below the shoulder blades, or everything between the i(N)kHedi and the ni'de. This seems to take =kHe, though I have an alternate =tHe in my March notes. a' 'arm'. One arm is =kHe; both are =tHe. noNbe' 'hand'. In March, this took =tHe whether singular or plural, which agrees with Dorsey. Last night a single hand was =kHe, probably due to positional burnout. noNbe'hi 'finger'. This seems to take =kHe in the singular, or =tHe for the set. s^a'ge 'nail'. Uncertain. In March, it was =kHe for one and =tHe for the set. Last night, it was =tHe for one and =kHe for the line of nails. Then when I tried to mimic one of John's examples from Dorsey to see if I could get =ge by subordinating the s^a'ges to an intermediate segment, I got: noN'bes^age tHe, "set of nails on hands". Mental note: next time I meet with the speakers, move this to the top of the list and get a couple of sentences. ni'de 'buttocks'. This seems to be generally =kHe, as in: Ni'de kHe winoN'tHe koN'bdha. "I want to kick you in the butt", (spontaneously offered to me once by the elder speaker). There is also an expression for spanking someone, however, in which ni'de takes =dhoN. z^ega' the whole (mammalian) leg. This seems to take =kHe in the singular and =tHe for the set. z^i'be the leg, especially the front of the segment between knee and ankle. The speakers said last night that z^i'be ttoN'ga kHe meant "the bigger part of the thigh". My March notes have =kHe for one and =tHe for the set. s^inoN'oNde 'knee'. This seems to take =dhoN for one knee, and =tHe for the set. si' 'foot'. This seems to take =kHe for one foot, and =tHe for the set. wahi' 'bone'. A single bone generally takes =kHe. The speakers told me in March that wahi' tHe meant a whole skeleton. ha' the skin or hide of an animal. This seems to take =dhoN. xiNha' human skin. This also seems to take =dhoN. In general, I think =dhoN is used for things like skin, cloth or paper. noN'oNde 'heart'. This takes =dhoN. pa'xdhu 'nostril'. This normally takes =tHe, possibly in reference to the set. It was decided last night that =kHe was used in the singular. But when I asked for the sentence "My nostril is plugged", I was given: Pa'xdhu tHe oNwoN'ske. I suspect that tHe is used even in the singular, and that the =kHe derives from positional burnout. noNbe's^ka 'fist'. This seems to take =dhoN, as in: NoNbe's^ka dhoN oNttoN'ga, "My fist is big". i'ki 'chin'. This seems to take =tHe, as in: I'ki tHe oNhiN's^kube, "My chin is hairy". dhe'ta 'navel'. This seems to take =tHe, as in: Dhe'ta tHe oNs^na'be, "My navel is dirty". Anyway, that's what I have so far. There is a lot more uncertainty in this list than we would like, but I hope John will find it a good start! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 06:15:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:15:38 -0600 Subject: OP dhaN-Gender Nouns Message-ID: Rory: That was a great list of body parts! I'm grateful to you and the speakers you worked with. That list represents a lot of work! I'm sorry to hear of the death in the family of the two women. I'm appending here the list of dhaN-nouns in the first 200 pages of Dorsey. It is more or less in agreement with the contemporary results, with perhaps a few more dhaN forms at the expense of khe forms. The logic for dhaN vs. khe is not always clear to me. Particular points of interest: - I ran across 'right ear' and it took =dhaN, so perhaps =the is a set form. Nevertheless, there are any cases of non-set or singular forms with sets, though perhaps not "all of" sets. - The word for one of the lower aperatures occurs with dhaN. - A number of forms appear here that have appeared in the earlier lists, including parts and containers that I thought might be =the and =khe class categories! a'bakku 'nape of the neck' dhe'ze 'tongue' dhie' 'side' (of body) he' 'horns (antlers) (of several elk)' hiN' '(body) hair, fur' hiNbe' 'moccasins' iN'be 'tails (of turkeys)' iNde' 'face' iN'z^e 'v at g1na' is^ta' 'eye(s)' maN'ghe 'sky (cloud?)' maNz^aN' 'land' naN'b udhi'xdha 'ring' naN'de 'heart' na(N)s^ki' 'head' na(N)z^i'ha 'hair (scalp)' ne'udhis^aN 'lake' ni'gha 'stomach' niN' '(body of) water' niN'de 'rump' nitta' is^nu'ga 'right ear' ppa' 'head' ppa' 'heads (of seven-headed monster)' ppa' 'heads (of several turkeys)' ppahe' 'hill' ppi' 'liver' s^aN'de 'scrotum' tta' 'jerked meat' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' ttaN'waNgdhaN 'tribe (village)' ttea'zaNttasi 'kidneys' ttedhe'xe 'tongue(s) (of group of monster heads)' tteppi' 'liver' tti' 'circle of lodges' tti'=i, wasa'be 'Blackbear village' (modifier optional) tti'=i 'village (not of Blackbears); circle of lodges' tti'z^ebe 'door' u?u'de 'hole (gap to see through)' ubaN' 'fat around the kidneys' u'daN=xti 'a piece of something very good to eat' us^kaN' 'deed' ('the fact that ...' ?) uxdhu'xaha 'woman's bag' u'z^iha 'sack' waba'snaN 'shoulder (of rabbit)' wabdha'the=th e'gaN aNdha'?i 'what you gave me so I might eat' wadha'ge 'hat' wa'ga ma'=xaN=bi 'a slice cut off' wai'iN 'robe' wamiN' 'blood (clot?)' wa'nanase 'buffalo pound (?)' = '(where) they surrounded many times' was^iN' he'be 'piece of fat' xa'de 'grass' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 07:05:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:05:04 -0600 Subject: OP ge-Gender Nouns Message-ID: Not surprisingly these are all plurals and, to the extent that singulars occur, they are in other classes. da'daN p[h?]a 'bitter (some)things' dhis^pa's^pa=i 'fragments (of Rabbit's body)' maN'ze 'pieces of iron' naN'de ttiz^e'be=dh e'gaN 'walls and doors, too' naN'ppahi 'chokecherry bushes' ne'ghe 'kettles' siN'de '(a collection of severed) tails' tta' '(pieces of) meat' tt'e=ma ha 'hides of a group of buffalo' ttenaN'de 'scattered buffalo hearts' ttenaN'de was^iN 'buffalo heart fat' tti'=i 'lodges' umiN'z^e 'beds' usne' 'splits (or holes) in a hollow tree' uthaN' 'leggings (for one person)' wadha'the maNdhiN' p[h?]a 'bitter things he was going along eating' wai'iN 'robes' wathaN' 'goods' (wattaN' ?) waxa'ga ppai' 'sharp thorns' xa'de ppe'z^i p[h?]a 'bitter herbs and grasses' z^aNdhaN'ha 'scattered bits of bark' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 07:27:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:27:48 -0600 Subject: OP Merged Noun Class List Message-ID: Here is the merged and sorted list of forms. I thought this might be easier to work with. Again this is from about the first 200 pages of the Dorsey 1890 text collection, so there are about 700 more pages, including the 1891 collection. This is only a sample. I have folded a few lines to bring headwords to the fore. This list does clearly show =the as a pluralizer of =khe and =dhaN forms, though as Ardis pointed out, with many body part nouns it is not necessary to indicate plurality, while, again, contexts also exist in which it might normally be indicated, at least for some nouns, when parts from several bodies are indicated, or when the completeness of the set for one body is emphasized. With some nouns plurality is normally marked, e.g., with 'ears'. There are =the forms that seem to be singular, too, e.g., uxpe' 'bowl' or tti' 'lodge'. Plurality may be involved in some cases where my gloss does not indicate it, through carelessness on my part - mainly where Dorsey's gloss neglected it. In addition, some forms may be indicated as plural falsely, based on English logic (see i'e 'word'). One should not assume that missing forms, like a'=the 'arms', do not exist. I have tried to disguise the spelling of body parts that might cause spam or rant etc., filters to be invoked, though, frankly, with this much "NetSiouan" notation I now pretty much assume that this post will be filtered out as spam if recipients don't take steps to prevent this. a'=khe 'arm' a'bakku=dhaN 'nape of the neck' a'dhiN=khe 'ridge' baghu'=khe 'peak (mountain)' dhe'ghegakku=the 'drum' dhe'ze=dhaN 'tongue' dhe'ze=the 'tongues' dhie'=dhaN 'side' (of body) dhie'=khe 'side, flank' dhis^pa's^pa=i=ge '(ripped off) fragments (of Rabbit's body)' ha'az^iNga=khe 'cord' (sic, spelling and number) ha'z^iNga=the 'cord' (sic, spelling and number) he'=dhaN 'horns (antlers) (of several elk)' he'=khe 'horn' he'be=the 'piece' hedhu'baz^aN=khe 'swing' hi'gaN=the 'myth' hiN'=dhaN '(body) hair, fur' hiNbe'=dhaN 'moccasins' hiNxpe'=khe 'fine feather' hu'=the 'voice' huhu'=khe 'fish' i'=the 'mouth' i'e=khe 'words' i'e=the 'speech, words' iN'?e=khe 'stone' iN'?e=the 'stone(s?)' iN'be=dhaN 'tails (of turkeys)' iNde'=dhaN 'face' iN'z^e=dhaN 'v at g1na' is^ta'=dhaN 'eye(s)' is^ta'ha=khe 'eyelid' kkaN'ha=khe 'border, edge' ma'=khe 'snow' ma'dhe=the 'winter' maN=khe 'arrow' maN'=the 'arrows' maNa'=the 'cliff' maNc^hu'=khe '(dead) grizzly bear' maN'de=khe 'bow' maNde'ppa=the 'head of bow' maN'ghe=dhaN 'sky (cloud?)' maN'ghe=khe 'sky' maN'hiNsi=the 'arrow heads' maNnaN's^ude=the 'dust from treading the ground' maN'sa=the 'arrow shafts' maNxpi'=khe 'cloud' maNz^aN'=dhaN 'land' maN'z^iha=khe 'quiver' maN'ze=ge 'pieces of iron' maN'zedhahe=khe 'bridle' maN'zewethiN=khe 'sword' ma's^aN=khe 'feather' mas^aN=the 'feathers (a collected bunch)' maxu'de=the 'ashes' na(N)s^ki'=dhaN 'head' na(N)z^i'ha=dhaN 'hair (scalp)' naN'b udhi'xdha=dhaN 'ring' naNbe'=the 'hand' naN'de=dhaN 'heart' naN'de=khe 'side of the tent' naN'ppahi=ge 'chokecherry bushes' ne'ghe=ge 'kettles' ne'udhis^aN=dhaN 'lake' ni(N)'gha=khe 'stomach' ni'as^iNga ppia'z^i=khe 'bad man (dead)' ni'as^iNga sighdha=i=khe 'person's trail (tracks)' ni'gha=dhaN 'stomach' nihaN'ga=the 'spring (of water)' niN'=dhaN '(body of) water' niN=khe 'water' niN'=the 'water' niN'de=dhaN 'rump' niN'de=khe 'cooked stuff' nini'ba=khe 'pipe' niN'ttaNga=khe 'large body of water' nitta' is^nu'ga=dhaN 'right ear' ni'tta=the 'ear' nu'ge=the 'summer' nu'ghe=khe 'ice' nu'z^iNga=khe 'boy (dead, lying)' p[h?]a=ge, da'daN 'bitter (some)things' p[h?]a=ge, wadha'the maNdhiN' 'bitter things he was going along eating' p[h?]a=ge, xa'de ppe'z^i 'bitter herbs and grasses' ppa'=the 'heads (a set of several from a decapitated monster)' ppa'=dhaN 'head' ppa'=dhaN 'heads (of seven-headed monster)' ppa'=dhaN 'heads (of several turkeys)' ppahe'=khe 'hill' ppahe'=dhaN 'hill' ppai'=the 'points' ppa'ze=the 'evenings' ppe'de=the 'fire' ppe'z^e=khe 'grass' ppi'=dhaN 'liver' ppiza'=khe 'sand' s^aN'de=dhaN 'scrotum' s^aN'ttaNga=khe '(dead) wolf' s^iN'gaz^iNga=khe 'infant (lying)' si'=khe 'foot' si'gdhe=khe 'footprint' sigdhe'=the 'trail (footprints?)' sihi'=khe 'foot' sihi'=the 'feet' siN'de=ge '(a collection of severed) tails' siN'de=khe 'tail' snede=a'xti=s^naN=khe 'what is usually really long' (foot) tta'=dhaN 'jerked meat' tta'=ge '(pieces of) meat' ttaN'de=khe 'ground' ttanu'kka=dhaN 'fresh meat' ttanu'kka=khe 'fresh meat' ttanu'kka=the 'fresh meat' ttaN'waNgdhaN=dhaN 'tribe (village)' tta'xti=khe '(dead) deer' tte'=ma ha=ge 'hides of a group of buffalo' tte'=khe 'buffalo meat' ttea'zaNttasi=dhaN 'kidneys' ttedhe'xe=dhaN 'tongue(s) (of group of monster heads)' ttemaN'ge=khe 'buffalo breast' ttenaN'de was^iN=ge 'buffalo heart fat' ttenaN'de=ge 'scattered buffalo hearts' tteppi'=dhaN 'liver' ttez^e'ga=khe 'buffalo thigh (upper leg)' tti'=dhaN 'circle of lodges' tti'=i=dhaN 'village (not of Blackbears); circle of lodges' tti'=i=dhaN, wasa'be 'Blackbear village' (modifier optional) tti'=i=ge 'lodges' tti'=khe 'lodge (thrown down, i.e., taken down)' tti'=khe 'lodges (collective)' tti=khe, xa'de 'grass lodge' tti'=the 'lodge' tti'ha a'kkibesaN=khe 'tentskin fold' tti'z^ebe, ttiz^e'be=the 'door' ttiz^e'be=dh e'gaN=ge, naN'de 'walls and doors, too' tti'z^ebe=dhaN 'door' u'?e=khe 'field' u?u'de=dhaN 'hole (gap to see through)' u?u'de=the 'hole' ubaN'=dhaN 'fat around the kidneys' uc^hi'z^e=khe 'thicket' u'daN=xti=dhaN 'a piece of something very good to eat' u'haN=the 'cooking' uhaN'ge=khe 'beginning, end (margin)' umaN'(?)e=the 'provisions' umiN'z^e=ge 'beds' umiN'z^e=khe 'couch, bed' umiN'z^e=the 'couch, bed' u's?u=khe 'slice' u's?u=the 'slices' us^kaN'=dhaN 'deed' ('the fact that ...' ?) u's^kaN=khe 'deed' (u)s^kaN'=the 'deed' u's^kaN=the 'deed(s?)' usne'=ge 'splits (or holes) in a hollow tree' uthaN'=ge 'leggings (for one person)' uxdhu'xa=khe 'deep hollow' uxdhu'xaha=dhaN 'woman's bag' uxpe' z^iNga=khe 'small bowl' uxpe'=the 'bowl' u'z^iha=dhaN 'sack' u'z^iha=khe 'bag' wa?aN'=the 'song' wa?iN'=the 'pack' wa?u'=khe 'woman (lying, tied by foot)' waba'snaN=dhaN 'shoulder (of rabbit)' wabdha'the=th e'gaN aNdha'?i 'what you gave me so I might eat' wac^hi's^ka=khe 'creek' wadha'ge=dhaN 'hat' wa'dhaha=the 'clothing' wadhatha=i=the 'what they ate (a piece)' wadha'the=khe 'food' wa'ga ma'=xaN=bi=dhaN 'a slice cut off' wahi'=khe 'bone' wahu'ttaNdhiN=khe 'gun' wai'iN=dhaN 'robe' wai'iN=ge 'robes' wakkaN'da(gi)=khe '(dead) water deity' wakku'=khe 'awl' wamiN'=dhaN 'blood (clot?)' wa'nanase=dhaN 'buffalo pound (?)' '(where) they surrounded many times' wappe'=khe 'weapon' was^iN' he'be=dhaN 'piece of fat' was^iN'=the 'fat' wathaN=ge 'goods' (wattaN?) waxa'ga ppai'=ge 'sharp thorns' we's?a=khe 'snake' xa'de=dhaN 'grass' xdhabe'=khe 'tree' (presumably fallen) xdhabe'=the 'tree' z^aN'=khe 'wood' z^aN'=the 'tree' z^aNdhaN'ha=ge 'scattered bits of bark' z^aNxdhu'?a=the 'hollow tree' z^aN'z^iNga=khe 'stick' z^e'=khe 'p3n1s' z^u'ga=khe 'body' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 07:56:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:56:01 -0600 Subject: *ki (Re: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/) In-Reply-To: <018001c43de9$fb875080$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Don't know about Biloxi, but Tutelo uses ki or kiN. It's a bit strange, > since it's found very seldom other than that. I can't make up my mind > whether it's should be reconstructed as an article or as something > broader. I believe I was misrecollecting the Tutelo forms as Biloxi in this case. My error! I also wonder about -gi in Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi, though that's an oddball form. I'd assume it would have to be a loan of sorts, rather than a retention. I think I once noticed another *-ki form, probably in Osage (which also has wahkoNtaki), but I can't relocate it. From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 21 14:00:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:00:37 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: This would really be helpful to me, as I (along with Carolyn Quintero, Justin McBride, Kathy Shea and others) would have something to compare across languages. I'm still very curious to discover the extent to which these (and other) nouns are assigned a non-changing class, or, alternatively, can be used with different articles depending on position. 'Tree/log', 'head/nose', 'house/camp-circle' already suggested a certain amount of ossification in the system, and this makes learning the proper "gender" for many nouns a matter of priority. Bob > John wrote: > > I wish the Fletcher & LaFlesche body parts list had articles attached! Rory wrote: > With that segue, why don't I start posting the results > I've been getting for these parts? A couple of months > ago, I started a project of trying to establish the > canonical positional for each of the main body parts > listed in Fletcher & La Flesche for use with our class > in using stative verbs. From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 21 14:07:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:07:44 -0500 Subject: *ki Message-ID: I think Blair's comment on Catawban pretty much clinches the argument, especially since it shows the same nasal/non-nasal allomorphs as Dakotan. There definitely is a deictic {ki} in Dhegiha -- in fact, in that very term, dheGIha -- and it recurs in other deictic clusters. My preferred reconstruction would be as a broader deictic of some kind rather than as a definite article. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > I believe I was misrecollecting the Tutelo forms as Biloxi in this case. > My error! I bet if we scour the Biloxi texts, it'll turn up in one form or another. > I also wonder about -gi in Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi, though that's an > oddball form. I'd assume it would have to be a loan of sorts, rather than > a retention. I think I once noticed another *-ki form, probably in Osage > (which also has wahkoNtaki), but I can't relocate it. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat May 22 06:24:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 00:24:24 -0600 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## In-Reply-To: <008001c43f3d$0f9451f0$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I think Blair's comment on Catawban pretty much clinches the argument, > especially since it shows the same nasal/non-nasal allomorphs as > Dakotan. There are at least three morphemes that show final i ~ iN in Dakotan. It is intersting to see this alternation so far afield. Besides =ki (Teton and/or modern?) and =kiN (Santee and/or old?), I have run into: PMV =xti(N) 'real, very' Te ec^he'=xc^i just so' Sa ec^he'=xc^iN ~ ec^he'=xtiN 'just so' (In Da more or less fossilized where it occurs, I think.) OP =xti ~ =xc^i IO =xj^i Wi =xj^iN PMV =s^i(N) adversative Te/Sa =s^ ADV; =s^=niN NEG As/St =s^iN NEG OP =z^i NEG Wi =z^i 'at least' > There definitely is a deictic {ki} in Dhegiha -- in fact, in that very > term, dheGIha -- and it recurs in other deictic clusters. I've never been quite sure what to make of this stem. Dorsey gives a set of cognate or comparable forms along the lines of Dhegiha in his Phonology of Five Siouan Languages. Unfortunately I haven't a clue which of 10+ boxes this xerox is in. A few of the forms are in other sources, quoted from here, perhaps. OP dhe'giha 'those here, the people of this place, those on our side (in a game)' Ks yega 'right here', yega'ha 'hither; those here, the people of this land' Os ??? Qu deka' 'first (people)' IO Ji'were 'Otoe'. I seem to recall that this has a variant jegiwere. Unfortunately these forms aren't regularly cognate and seem to be merely forms Dorsey had collected for 'the ones here', not necessarily parallel in morphology. All the forms clearly begin with the proxmimal demonstrative (OP dhe, Ks ye, Os dhe, Qu de, IO j^e). On this basis the Ks form may be parallel with the remote demonstrative forms gago 'enough', gago'ha 'over that way, over yonder'. These seem to involve *ka + *ko, where *ko matches OP gu. This gu takes a bit of explaining, especially since I don't really understand it ... OP has as its principle demonstratives dhe 'this', s^e 'that (near you)', ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. These parallel Teton le, he, ka, except that whereas he is the more common of the distal demonstratives in Teton, ga may be a bit less marked than s^e in OP, though both are common enough. Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, ga are du, s^u, gu. These occur with motion verbs as prefixes, especially s^u, with the gloss 'toward you'. You also get forms like du'=akha 'this one' or du'diha 'this way, hither', or gu'diha 'that way, yonder' in which =di is a locative postposition and =ha is perhaps another. It occurs in forms with demonstratives and numbers and a few other things prefixed. These forms have readings like '(to/from) X directions, in X places'. Maybe it's a multiplicative? I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" hypothesis. You also find locatives of the form dhe=dhu, s^e=dhu and ga=dhu. Sometimes I wonder if the du, etc., forms are old contractions of dhe=dhu, etc. However, one thing you don't seem to find is combinations of the first series of demonstratives with the second. No *dhedu (or *dedu) or *s^es^u or *gagu. However, I think Osage has a locative suffix =ki, and there is certainly a locative suffix =gi in Winnebago and I think ditto in IO. So, perhaps yega and gago are reformulated from *yegi and *gagi In that case, I suspect Ks yegaha and gagoha are from *yegiha and *gagiha. You also find something similar with doda, dodaha 'this way, etc.' and goda, godaha 'yonder; that way', which ought to match OP dudi, dudiha and gudi, gudiha. In all of these the second vowel has /i/ replaced with /a/ (or /o/ after ga-). In OP the form dhegiha seems to be something of a relict. It doesn't occur in the Dorsey texts and neither does *dhegi, or *gagi or *gagiha or any -gi locative of any sort, as far as I am aware, except perhaps egiha, which is variously rendered as 'headlong; into, through, under the surface'. The IO forms involve j^e 'this', sometimes with =gi LOC, and then we-re. IO /we/ seems to parallel OP /he/ 'lying', as in k-he 'the lying', or ihe=dhe 'lay, place lying' and 'suddenly' auxiliaries like thi=he 'to approach suddenly' which are often a sequence of a motion verb plus a positional root. The function of IO -re here might be adverbial, but, in any event, the IO forms differ from the Dhegiha ones in adding a positional fomation of some sort in lieu of the Dhegiha locative suffix =ha. In fact, Bob lists Ks forms like yegakhaN 'those here, the people of this land' alongside yegaha. Insofar as I can pierce the impenetrable fog of Kawness here, I take this to be an analog of (unattested) OP *dhe=gi=thaN or *dhe=gi 'here' + thaN 'the (animate, standing)'. There's also ye'gaya 'here, in this place' in which the -ya might be analogous to the IO -re. I could be very wrong here, because for a student of OP to make sense of Kaw is somewhat like using an American guide in the Scottish outback. I once heard a funny story about some French folks and an American friend who attempted this. Before long the French couple were convinced that the American did not speak the English, and while the American thought that he did, he was certain that the Scotts did not. > My preferred reconstruction would be as a broader deictic of some kind > rather than as a definite article. For the present, at least, I prefer the -gi in Dhe-gi-ha as a locative (in Missisippi Valley), over a braide deictic. However, it is easy to get from demonstrative to locative and back, and, as Wes Jones has demonstrated in several contexts, there is considerable evidence that Siouan does this a lot. It would be possible for the MV source of Dakotan ki(N) to be either morphologically independent of the *=ki locative in Mississippi Valley or the same, and it would certainly be possible for these one or two forms in MV to derive from a single historical source as the Tutelo and Catawba deictic elements. Wes's term was "morphological constellation." Anyway, my quibble is no more than a quibble and in no way a disagreement in principle. Broadly speaking I agreee with Blair and Bob. From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sat May 22 17:00:33 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:00:33 -0700 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was interested to see the PMV reconstruction =xti(N), because this is one of those intriguing resemblances between Siouan and Iroquoian, where in the latter there's an intensifier with the form =hji. (No nasalization, but Iroquoian doesn't have a nasalized I.) I guess you'd call it fossilized too, in the sense that it only occurs with a few established forms. Particularly intriguing is the combination -keN-hji, which is an Iroquoian stem meaning "old" as applied to a human. How widespread in Siouan is -kaN- "old"? Wally > There are at least three morphemes that show final i ~ iN in Dakotan. It > is intersting to see this alternation so far afield. Besides =ki (Teton > and/or modern?) and =kiN (Santee and/or old?), I have run into: > > PMV =xti(N) 'real, very' > > Te ec^he'=xc^i just so' > Sa ec^he'=xc^iN ~ ec^he'=xtiN 'just so' > (In Da more or less fossilized where it occurs, I think.) > > OP =xti ~ =xc^i > > IO =xj^i > > Wi =xj^iN From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 23 07:11:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 01:11:00 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian In-Reply-To: <2706359.1085220033@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > I was interested to see the PMV reconstruction =xti(N), because this is one > of those intriguing resemblances between Siouan and Iroquoian, where in the > latter there's an intensifier with the form =hji. (No nasalization, but > Iroquoian doesn't have a nasalized I.) I guess you'd call it fossilized > too, in the sense that it only occurs with a few established forms. > Particularly intriguing is the combination -keN-hji, which is an Iroquoian > stem meaning "old" as applied to a human. How widespread in Siouan is -kaN- > "old"? I can't think of anything like kaN 'old' in an Omaha-Ponca context, and I didn't find anything like this under 'old' or 'mature' in the CSD files. Maybe Bob knows of something? Ther eis the *hkaN 'holy, sacred' root, which might transfer via the concept of veneration. One possibility with =xti is that the first part of it is comparable to that *=s^i(N) adversative morpheme. A number of intensifiers and negatives and so on start with =s^... or =x... However, I don't think that the enclitics are especially well understood in comparative terms. Reflexes of *=xti occur in Mississippi Valley and Southeastern. It's pretty productive in Dhegiha, where it tends to occur slmost automatically with some kinds of adverbs (in Omaha-Ponca) and is used in various other ways, too. I do have the impression that it is restricted in use in Dakotan. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 23 07:13:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 01:13:26 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam at Colorado. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Sun May 23 14:02:34 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:02:34 +0100 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. WibdhahaN Anthony >>> John.Koontz at colorado.edu 23/05/2004 08:13:26 >>> Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam at Colorado. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 23 17:05:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:05:18 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian Message-ID: Well, *-xti is clearly proto-Siouan. I don't have /kan/ or anything similar for 'old' (but, of course, our coverage is far from exhaustive). Nasalization is used for further intensification in both Siouan and Muskogean sporadically. Perhaps other Eastern language families as well. John's given Siouan examples. In Muskogean you have things like Creek /cotki/ 'little', /cotkosi/ 'tiny', where /-osi/ is a diminutive ending, and then, /cooNtkosi/ 'itsy bitsy' with extra high pitch (not to be confused with the nasal aspectual grade that signals continuative). We have a few other cognate sets in Siouan with "intrusive" nasalization including the verb 'give'. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:11 AM Subject: Re: Siouan and Iroquoian > On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > > I was interested to see the PMV reconstruction =xti(N), because this is one > > of those intriguing resemblances between Siouan and Iroquoian, where in the > > latter there's an intensifier with the form =hji. (No nasalization, but > > Iroquoian doesn't have a nasalized I.) I guess you'd call it fossilized > > too, in the sense that it only occurs with a few established forms. > > Particularly intriguing is the combination -keN-hji, which is an Iroquoian > > stem meaning "old" as applied to a human. How widespread in Siouan is -kaN- > > "old"? > > I can't think of anything like kaN 'old' in an Omaha-Ponca context, and I > didn't find anything like this under 'old' or 'mature' in the CSD files. > Maybe Bob knows of something? Ther eis the *hkaN 'holy, sacred' root, > which might transfer via the concept of veneration. > > One possibility with =xti is that the first part of it is comparable to > that *=s^i(N) adversative morpheme. A number of intensifiers and > negatives and so on start with =s^... or =x... However, I don't think > that the enclitics are especially well understood in comparative terms. > Reflexes of *=xti occur in Mississippi Valley and Southeastern. It's > pretty productive in Dhegiha, where it tends to occur slmost automatically > with some kinds of adverbs (in Omaha-Ponca) and is used in various other > ways, too. I do have the impression that it is restricted in use in > Dakotan. > > From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 23 17:05:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:05:56 -0500 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: Interesting -- it made it thru here OK. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:13 AM Subject: Combined OP Article List > Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from > the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam > at Colorado. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sun May 23 17:19:02 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:19:02 -0700 Subject: Old In-Reply-To: <005301c440e8$32cd6b50$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: What am I to make of the fact that Buechel has an entry "old" that includes akaN; kaNhi "live to be old"; okaN "old age"; okaNka "at old age, at the last"? Curiously, Williamson has, at the end of the entry "old", kaN "an old coat". I must be missing something here. --Wally From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 23 22:45:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:45:44 -0500 Subject: Old Message-ID: It may just be an etymon that we haven't picked up on. Much (most?) of Buechel is cribbed word for word from Riggs, and Williamson is the reverse for Riggs. The term must exist. I'll check Quapaw and Kaw dictionaries and see if I can find anything. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wallace Chafe" To: Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:19 PM Subject: Old > What am I to make of the fact that Buechel has an entry "old" that includes > akaN; kaNhi "live to be old"; okaN "old age"; okaNka "at old age, at the > last"? Curiously, Williamson has, at the end of the entry "old", kaN "an > old coat". I must be missing something here. > --Wally > > From mary.marino at usask.ca Mon May 24 04:56:40 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:56:40 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It didn't reach me, but may have been caught in the spam filter. I don't go through it because there seem to be 50-100 items every day. Mary At 01:13 AM 5/23/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from >the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam >at Colorado. > >John E. Koontz >http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon May 24 15:06:14 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:06:14 -0500 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > This gu takes a bit of explaining, especially since I don't really > understand it ... OP has as its principle demonstratives dhe 'this', s^e > 'that (near you)', ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. I think we might want to double check that interpretation of ga. I believe it was a year ago last spring that I was teaching these to our class with this interpretation when the speakers corrected me at one of our evening meetings. According to them, the term for 'yonder' is actually s^ehi'. The ga demonstrative, they say, actually means 'right there, at that exact spot'. How close it is to speaker or listener doesn't matter. So I had to go back iNde' oNz^i'de to the class with this new doctrine and bear the slings and arrows of those who would have preferred to be taught right the first time. I think this interpretation may make better sense with the Dorsey texts too. There is a section in Two Face and the Twin Brothers in which the elder brother has climbed a tree to capture a nest full of Thunderbird chicks. Before he seizes each one he addresses it to ask its name: "And ga'niNkHe's^e, what is YOUR name?" The ga'niNkHe's^e means 'YOU there, the one sitting right there'. It certainly doesn't mean 'yonder' in this context. > These parallel Teton le, he, ka, except that whereas he is the more common > of the distal demonstratives in Teton, ga may be a bit less marked than > s^e in OP, though both are common enough. Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, > ga are du, s^u, gu. That's interesting! I hadn't fully made this connection! > I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu > YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" > hypothesis. This is also an interesting idea! I had always wondered about that gu in a'gudi. But if gu parallels ga, and if ga actually has the sense of 'right there', then it is more transparent than "Where away?". Another form of 'Where?' is awa'ta, which is generally used with verbs of motion in the sense of 'what direction is someone going'. A'gudi is used for asking about a precise location. So perhaps a-gu-di parses as INTERROGATIVE + PRECISE_SPOT + LOC, which is exactly what it means. Rory From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Mon May 24 15:22:14 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:22:14 -0500 Subject: conference details Message-ID: Just a few little practicalities for those of you attending the Siouan and Caddoan conference: 1. Parking. Parking on campus will be free, but you need a guest permit. I've got a bunch of these and would be happy to send one to anyone who gives me their mailing address. (Alternatively you can just pick one up when you get here. I'll leave some at the motel and dorm front desks, and will have some in the meeting room.) The lot where this permit allows you to park is across campus from the dorm and conference building. Not too far -- about 2 or 3 city blocks -- but if walking this far is going to be a big problem for anyone, let me know. 2. Maps/locations I've also got some campus maps -- like the permits, I could send them out if you want one ahead of time. You can also find a campus map on the web -- http://www.wsc.edu/about_campus/map/front.htm "The Dorm" is Neihardt Hall (named after WSC alumnus John G. Neihardt, of "Black Elk Speaks" fame). It's the first building on the left as you turn in at the main entrance to the college (turning into J.G.Lewis Drive off Main St). Paper sessions will be in Humanities Building (3rd building on the right as you come in that same entrance), room 319. For early arrivals ... pre-conference extremely informal party is at 915 Logan St. (1 block south of campus. Logan is parallel to Main St., one block east.) 375-4316. Thursday evening 7:00 on. If you show up before 7 we'll put you to work chopping veggies or something; feel free. 3. Housing Just a nudge... make your reservations soon if you haven't done so. The motel block is held for us only till the 27th. I don't know of any big events that should fill up the motels, but in a 3-motel town it doesn't take much. One wedding could do it. The dorms also fill up with summer sports camps and such... Forgive me, I can't help myself. I ran across this in a novel: "When April with its sweet showers has pierced the drought of March to the root, and bathed every vein of earth with that liquid by whose power the flowers are engendered; when the zephyr, too, with its dulcet breath, has breathed life into the tender new shoots [...], then, as the poet Geoffrey Chaucer observed many years ago, folk long to go on pilgrimages. Only, these days, professional people call them conferences. The modern conference resembles the pilgrimage of medieval Christendom in that it allows the participants to indulge themselves in all the pleasures and diversions of travel while appearing to be austerely bent on self-improvement. To be sure, there are certain penitential exercises to be performed -- the presentation of a paper, perhaps, and certainly listening to the papers of others. But with this excuse you journey to new and interesting places, meet new and interesting people, and form new and interesting relationships with them [...] eat, drink and make merry in their company every evening; and yet, at the end of it all, return home with an enhanced reputation for seriousness of mind. " A free WSC pencil to anyone who can identify the author. (Of course, Siouanists ARE serious-minded, and the "pleasures and diversions" to be had in Wayne will consist mostly of listening to each others' papers... :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 24 16:23:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:23:45 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040523225529.019ff320@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > It didn't reach me, but may have been caught in the spam filter. I don't > go through it because there seem to be 50-100 items every day. Interested parties who missed this (or the constituent lists) can find them in the LinguistList Archives. The merged list is at http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0405&L=siouan&D=1&F=&S=&P=11321 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 24 16:17:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:17:49 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 May 2004, Anthony Grant wrote: > John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. Is it spam, or, as the case may be, vegamite (sp?) in Ormskirk? From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Mon May 24 16:35:10 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:35:10 +0100 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: It didn't come through as spam (the subject, you may know, of an infamous Monty Python sketch). Vegemite is an exclusively Australian abomination, I'm glad to say,m though not unlike British Marmite (another yeast extract product though darker than vegemite). The nearest thing to spam in the US is pork luncheon meat; a US cookbook for disabled people explained a good way of getting that out of its tin/can, finishing the description of the technique with the line 'now all you have to do is bring yourself to eat the stuff!'. I suspect that the creation of spam (spiced ham) was inspired by Arctic and Subartic British experience with pemmican and maybe with Hudson Valley Dutch head cheese. Anthony Anthony >>> John.Koontz at colorado.edu 24/05/2004 17:17:49 >>> On Sun, 23 May 2004, Anthony Grant wrote: > John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. Is it spam, or, as the case may be, vegamite (sp?) in Ormskirk? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 24 17:10:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:10:29 -0600 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. > > I think we might want to double check that interpretation of ga. I > believe it was a year ago last spring that I was teaching these to our > class with this interpretation when the speakers corrected me at one of > our evening meetings. According to them, the term for 'yonder' is > actually s^ehi'. Very interesting. I believe that's the gloss Dorsey uses, too! I'd always wondered why (duh). Of course, it's an interesting question what yonder means, too. It isn't really part of my colloquial vocabulary. For me it's entirely learned. I dojn't know how it works in Nebraska. I was using it informally for 'yon'. I usually think of 'yonder' as 'toward yon' in formal terms, but, of course, most people who use it seem to make it part of the series here/there/yonder and/or this/that/yonder. I take it might mean (opposite of ga) 'at a vague distant location'? I remember that the first Omaha man I worked with came up with ga to for the prompt 'this', something that had always puzzled me. I think Dorsey explains the -hi element in demonstratives as meaning something like "a bit more than X." It's in a footnote early on in the texts. I assume it's from hi 'arrive there'. > The ga demonstrative, they say, actually means 'right there, at that > exact spot'. How close it is to speaker or listener doesn't matter. > ... > > I think this interpretation may make better sense with the Dorsey texts > too. There is a section in Two Face and the Twin Brothers in which the > elder brother has climbed a tree to capture a nest full of Thunderbird > chicks. Before he seizes each one he addresses it to ask its name: "And > ga'niNkHe's^e, what is YOUR name?" The ga'niNkHe's^e means 'YOU there, > the one sitting right there'. It certainly doesn't mean 'yonder' in > this context. Good example! > > Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, ga are du, s^u, gu. > > That's interesting! I hadn't fully made this connection! Well, at least it's a morphological parallel. I'm not so sure it's a semantic one, now. Gu- does seem to mean 'further away'. Gu'=di ga=hau (the imperative of gu'=di) means something like 'Go away!'. The initials of dhe and du are not comparable, suggesting *re and *to, but notice that Winnebago and IO j^ee suggest *te and Dakotan le, etc., suggest *Re, so *re ~ *Re ~ *te is a very irregular set to begin with. I assume it's a valid comparison in spite of this, and that the irregularity has to do with occurring syntactically in a mix of strong and weak phonological positions. > > I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu > > YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" > > hypothesis. > > This is also an interesting idea! I had always wondered about that > gu in a'gudi. But if gu parallels ga, and if ga actually has the > sense of 'right there', then it is more transparent than "Where away?". > Another form of 'Where?' is awa'ta, which is generally used with verbs > of motion in the sense of 'what direction is someone going'. A'gudi is > used for asking about a precise location. So perhaps a-gu-di parses as > INTERROGATIVE + PRECISE_SPOT + LOC, which is exactly what it means. I understand archaic naval "where away" to mean "in which direction away from where we are now," but my understanding of the etymology of a'gudi is merely generically similar to that, along the lines of "at what spot that I am pretty sure isn't the spot right here where we are now." In other words, without any notion of directionality, a notion which seems to be associated secondarily in demonstratives with a notion of vagueness. So, in regard to your hypothesis, it might mean 'at what precise spot', with gu conveying the notion of precision, but I'm not sure gu- fits into the precise spot demonstrative category. The awa- demonstrative root seems to be used in interrogatives having to do with choices among several logical possibilities. From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Mon May 24 17:45:55 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:45:55 +0100 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## Message-ID: John: In my idolect at least, yonder is 'way over there', the distal 'that' as opposed to the proximal one. Anthony >>> John.Koontz at colorado.edu 24/05/2004 18:10:29 >>> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. > > I think we might want to double check that interpretation of ga. I > believe it was a year ago last spring that I was teaching these to our > class with this interpretation when the speakers corrected me at one of > our evening meetings. According to them, the term for 'yonder' is > actually s^ehi'. Very interesting. I believe that's the gloss Dorsey uses, too! I'd always wondered why (duh). Of course, it's an interesting question what yonder means, too. It isn't really part of my colloquial vocabulary. For me it's entirely learned. I dojn't know how it works in Nebraska. I was using it informally for 'yon'. I usually think of 'yonder' as 'toward yon' in formal terms, but, of course, most people who use it seem to make it part of the series here/there/yonder and/or this/that/yonder. I take it might mean (opposite of ga) 'at a vague distant location'? I remember that the first Omaha man I worked with came up with ga to for the prompt 'this', something that had always puzzled me. I think Dorsey explains the -hi element in demonstratives as meaning something like "a bit more than X." It's in a footnote early on in the texts. I assume it's from hi 'arrive there'. > The ga demonstrative, they say, actually means 'right there, at that > exact spot'. How close it is to speaker or listener doesn't matter. > ... > > I think this interpretation may make better sense with the Dorsey texts > too. There is a section in Two Face and the Twin Brothers in which the > elder brother has climbed a tree to capture a nest full of Thunderbird > chicks. Before he seizes each one he addresses it to ask its name: "And > ga'niNkHe's^e, what is YOUR name?" The ga'niNkHe's^e means 'YOU there, > the one sitting right there'. It certainly doesn't mean 'yonder' in > this context. Good example! > > Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, ga are du, s^u, gu. > > That's interesting! I hadn't fully made this connection! Well, at least it's a morphological parallel. I'm not so sure it's a semantic one, now. Gu- does seem to mean 'further away'. Gu'=di ga=hau (the imperative of gu'=di) means something like 'Go away!'. The initials of dhe and du are not comparable, suggesting *re and *to, but notice that Winnebago and IO j^ee suggest *te and Dakotan le, etc., suggest *Re, so *re ~ *Re ~ *te is a very irregular set to begin with. I assume it's a valid comparison in spite of this, and that the irregularity has to do with occurring syntactically in a mix of strong and weak phonological positions. > > I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu > > YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" > > hypothesis. > > This is also an interesting idea! I had always wondered about that > gu in a'gudi. But if gu parallels ga, and if ga actually has the > sense of 'right there', then it is more transparent than "Where away?". > Another form of 'Where?' is awa'ta, which is generally used with verbs > of motion in the sense of 'what direction is someone going'. A'gudi is > used for asking about a precise location. So perhaps a-gu-di parses as > INTERROGATIVE + PRECISE_SPOT + LOC, which is exactly what it means. I understand archaic naval "where away" to mean "in which direction away from where we are now," but my understanding of the etymology of a'gudi is merely generically similar to that, along the lines of "at what spot that I am pretty sure isn't the spot right here where we are now." In other words, without any notion of directionality, a notion which seems to be associated secondarily in demonstratives with a notion of vagueness. So, in regard to your hypothesis, it might mean 'at what precise spot', with gu conveying the notion of precision, but I'm not sure gu- fits into the precise spot demonstrative category. The awa- demonstrative root seems to be used in interrogatives having to do with choices among several logical possibilities. From rankin at ku.edu Mon May 24 18:04:52 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:04:52 -0500 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## Message-ID: Mrs. Rowe used to tell kids in her yard "gooda moyiN" and translate it 'go 'way over yonder', meaning "get out of here". The /go:/ is what Omaha gu "really" is, of course. The tripartite English system should be something like (for those us us who still have a 3-way contrast): Here, there, yonder This, that, yon Now, then, (yore ?) ...for spatial, plain and temporal deictics respectively. Bob > In my idolect at least, yonder is 'way over there', the distal 'that' as opposed to the proximal one. Anthony From mary.marino at usask.ca Mon May 24 22:06:37 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:06:37 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Vegemite is the Australian version of Marmite - nothing to do with artificial meat. Mary At 10:17 AM 5/24/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Sun, 23 May 2004, Anthony Grant wrote: > > John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. > >Is it spam, or, as the case may be, vegamite (sp?) in Ormskirk? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 25 01:04:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 19:04:46 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040524160548.01a1cb90@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > Vegemite is the Australian version of Marmite - nothing to do with > artificial meat. Ah, yes, but marmite is an artificial or heavily processed and somewhat dubious food product, in that respect analogous to or conceptually resembling spam. I couldn't remember the term marmite until I had sent the message, but I remembered vegemite from the Men at Work song. (M at W were from New Zealand, I believe.) Marmite is a little rare in my neck of the woods. Now, since spam for me is a product of American ingenuity (not unlike individually wrapped slices of plastic-like cheese or, for that matter, 2x4s of velveeta), I thought that perhaps the analogous marmite, which I associate with the British, might be employed as the analogous British term for junk email. (I am definitely smiling or at least grimmacing as I write this, and I do apologize for the obscure and labored analogy.) Perhaps the analogy was weak. I think nobody admits to liking spam, but the British are said to take a perverse pride in marmite. This is not unlike the American attitude toward artificial cheese products as, for example, a hallowed ingredient in cheeseburgers or Philly cheesesteaks and a various dips. There are those who consider real cheese in these dishes to be both revolting and unnatural. Admission: It has been some years, but I have, in my childhood, eaten and like both spam and a homemade concoction called scrapple. From mary.marino at usask.ca Tue May 25 05:39:00 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:39:00 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I will admit without hesitation that, though I am not British, I like Marmite (spread thin on hot buttered toast) - I think we should drop the subject. Mary At 07:04 PM 5/24/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 24 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > Vegemite is the Australian version of Marmite - nothing to do with > > artificial meat. > >Ah, yes, but marmite is an artificial or heavily processed and somewhat >dubious food product, in that respect analogous to or conceptually >resembling spam. I couldn't remember the term marmite until I had sent >the message, but I remembered vegemite from the Men at Work song. (M at W >were from New Zealand, I believe.) Marmite is a little rare in my neck of >the woods. > >Now, since spam for me is a product of American ingenuity (not unlike >individually wrapped slices of plastic-like cheese or, for that matter, >2x4s of velveeta), I thought that perhaps the analogous marmite, which I >associate with the British, might be employed as the analogous British >term for junk email. (I am definitely smiling or at least grimmacing as I >write this, and I do apologize for the obscure and labored analogy.) > >Perhaps the analogy was weak. I think nobody admits to liking spam, but >the British are said to take a perverse pride in marmite. This is not >unlike the American attitude toward artificial cheese products as, for >example, a hallowed ingredient in cheeseburgers or Philly cheesesteaks and >a various dips. There are those who consider real cheese in these dishes >to be both revolting and unnatural. > >Admission: It has been some years, but I have, in my childhood, eaten and >like both spam and a homemade concoction called scrapple. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 25 15:05:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:05:00 -0600 Subject: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote Message-ID: An interesting footnote appears in Dorsey 1890 on p. 18. ==== [In regard to] ppa[']he s^e[']hidhaN[']di, [p.] 15, [line 3]: Let A denote the place of the speaker; B, ppahe s^ekhe, that visible long hill, a short distance off; b, ppahe s^edhaN, that visible curvilinear hill, a short distance off; C, ppahe s^ehikhe, that visible long hill, reaching a point further away; c, ppahe s^ehidhaN, ditto, if curvilinear; D, ppahe s^ehidhekhe, that visible long hill, extending beyond ppahe s^ekhe, and ppahe s^ehikhe; d, ppahe s^ehidhedhaN, that visible curvilinear hill, extending beyond ppahe s^edhaN and ppahe s^ehidhaN. [I've adapted the prthography. There follows a diagram in which X represents an oblong box orthogonal to the line of sight, Y an oblong box extending along the line of sight, and Z a circle. JEK] A ... BX ... CX ... DX; A ... BY ... CY ... DY; A ... bZ ... cZ ... dZ. ==== The ... represents a line of dashes labelled "line of sight." I take the reiteration of two lines with orthogonal and parallel oblongs to mean that the length of the hill could be aligned in any way with respect to the line of sight. Basically he's saying that it was explained to him that s^e' refers to something a short distance off, but visible, usually glossed by him (and therefore probably by his consultants) as 'that' or 'that near you', s^e'=hi refers to something visible but further away, glossed 'yonder', and s^e'=hi=dhe refers to something visible but even further off, glossed 'that distant' or 'that yonder'. For the record, at least once (Dorsey 1890:33.4) he does gloss ga'=ge as "those (unseen and scattered)," so I wasn't totally hallucinating on this, as I feared I might have been, to be perfectly honest. However, examples in which ga-things are quite clearly visible and near at hand are also found. I haven't looked into this extensively yet. Incidentally, I think we may have covered some of this ground before. The script - "X about demonstratives," said JEK; "But not really X," said someone else; "Oops," said JEK, face red - that (near at hand and visible) seems familiar. But I think the enlightement, in this case what Rory and the folks he's been working with have been able to explain about s^e=hi and ga - might have been different last time around. I will try to track down the last round. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From vstabler at esu1.org Tue May 25 15:23:25 2004 From: vstabler at esu1.org (Vida Stabler) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:23:25 -0500 Subject: conference details Message-ID: Hi Catherine, would you please send me a guest parking permit. VSS, Box 70, Walthill, Nebraska 68067. VS Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: > Just a few little practicalities for those of you attending the Siouan and > Caddoan conference: > > 1. Parking. > Parking on campus will be free, but you need a guest permit. I've got a > bunch of these and would be happy to send one to anyone who gives me their > mailing address. (Alternatively you can just pick one up when you get > here. I'll leave some at the motel and dorm front desks, and will have > some in the meeting room.) > > The lot where this permit allows you to park is across campus from the dorm > and conference building. Not too far -- about 2 or 3 city blocks -- but if > walking this far is going to be a big problem for anyone, let me know. > > 2. Maps/locations > I've also got some campus maps -- like the permits, I could send them out > if you want one ahead of time. You can also find a campus map on the web > -- http://www.wsc.edu/about_campus/map/front.htm > > "The Dorm" is Neihardt Hall (named after WSC alumnus John G. Neihardt, of > "Black Elk Speaks" fame). It's the first building on the left as you turn > in at the main entrance to the college (turning into J.G.Lewis Drive off > Main St). > > Paper sessions will be in Humanities Building (3rd building on the right as > you come in that same entrance), room 319. > > For early arrivals ... pre-conference extremely informal party is at 915 > Logan St. (1 block south of campus. Logan is parallel to Main St., one > block east.) 375-4316. Thursday evening 7:00 on. If you show up > before 7 we'll put you to work chopping veggies or something; feel free. > > 3. Housing > Just a nudge... make your reservations soon if you haven't done so. The > motel block is held for us only till the 27th. I don't know of any big > events that should fill up the motels, but in a 3-motel town it doesn't > take much. One wedding could do it. The dorms also fill up with summer > sports camps and such... > > Forgive me, I can't help myself. I ran across this in a novel: > "When April with its sweet showers has pierced the drought of March > to the root, and bathed every vein of earth with that liquid by whose power > the flowers are engendered; when the zephyr, too, with its dulcet breath, > has breathed life into the tender new shoots [...], then, as the poet > Geoffrey Chaucer observed many years ago, folk long to go on pilgrimages. > Only, these days, professional people call them conferences. > The modern conference resembles the pilgrimage of medieval > Christendom in that it allows the participants to indulge themselves in all > the pleasures and diversions of travel while appearing to be austerely bent > on self-improvement. To be sure, there are certain penitential exercises > to be performed -- the presentation of a paper, perhaps, and certainly > listening to the papers of others. But with this excuse you journey to new > and interesting places, meet new and interesting people, and form new and > interesting relationships with them [...] eat, drink and make merry in > their company every evening; and yet, at the end of it all, return home > with an enhanced reputation for seriousness of mind. " > A free WSC pencil to anyone who can identify the author. > (Of course, Siouanists ARE serious-minded, and the "pleasures and > diversions" to be had in Wayne will consist mostly of listening to each > others' papers... :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 26 07:57:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 01:57:13 -0600 Subject: More on Noun Classes or Gender in Omaha-Ponca Message-ID: We've mentioned the Omaha-Pocna verbs of position in the past. Corresponding logically to the dhaN, the, and khe articles are idhaN'=...dhe, ithe'=...dhe and ihe'=...dhe. Note ihe', not the expected *ikhe'. Also, there is apparently no *ige'=...dhe corresponding to the get 'the scattered' article. The final inflected part ...dhe is the causative, and forms like ...gidhe for the reflexive possessive or suus also occur. The inflected part makes the verb transitive 'to put (away), to place'. I suppose 'to set', 'to stand', and 'to lay' might be formal alternatives for 'to place'. There are uninflected intransitive forms idhaN', ithe', ihe' that are used sometimes, too. I wish I could say when it was appropriate to use these instead of gdhiN 'to sit', naNz^iN 'to stand', and z^aN 'to lie', but the light has not yet dawned. It occurred to me to look to see if use of these verbs correlated with the noun classes. I'd have said yes on speculation, but I had never really looked. To begin with, this does appear to be the case, though there are ramifications. For example, the noun hiNxpe' 'fine feather' (a body feather, as I think we established once) is usually hiNxpe'=khe (Dorsey 90:148.2, 151.6, 151.7, 155,11-12, 166.14, 170.5), though there are a few cases of hiNxpe'=dhaN glossed, perhaps not coincidentally, as 'plume' (Dorsey 90:614.14, 614.15). It appears that this =khe usage with hiNxpe' affects other contexts where the classification system enters into Omaha-Ponca grammar. For example: Dorsey 90:610.10 hiNxpe' ga'ghe z^aN'= khe= ama feather appearing as he lay EVID QUOTE He lay there looking like a feather. Here the =khe seems to be the evidential. This uses the idiom noun + ga'ghe 'to make' that is used to indicate magically emulating something. Notice that the class of hiNxpe' also probably determines the use of the verb z^aN 'to lie', though this is presumably only the default position of the feather. In this example both the evidential =khe and the verb of placement ihe'=...dhe occur with hiNxpe(=khe). I've thinned the example down somewhat, but it refers to a situation in which an eagle has been killed. It still appears to be there, but it has been magically replaced with a single feather. This is a common story element. Dorsey 90:52.6-9 ... [The eagle is killed. JEK] ... hiNxpe'= wiN udhi'xpadha=bi=khe= ama. ... fine feather one it fell EVID QUOTE [HiNxpe'=wiN 'a fine feather' governs the =khe evidential, though the noun being indefinite =khe is not present with the noun itself. JEK] Dhiza'=bi= ama. He took it QUOTE "Ga'= khe ihe'=dha= ga," a=bi=ama, wa?u' e' dhakha'=bi=egaN. this the put it away IMP he said woman she (he) meaning her [Ga'=khe 'that/this specific one' refers to the hiNxpe=khe, and 'put it away!' uses the khe-corresponding verb ihe'=...dhe. This statement involves a neat cleft in a subordinate clause, too: "it being the woman whom he meant (to put it away)." JEK] ... [Omitting a quarrel over the eagle. JEK] E'gasani=kki, aN'ba=ama, "Ma[N]'s^aN ihe'dhadhe= khe next day when day QUOTE feather you put it away the daN'ba= ga ha," a'=bi= ama. look at it IMP he said QUOTE [Here the hiNxpe'=khe is referred to in a relative clause in which ih'=...dhe is the relative clause verb. Instead of hiNxpe' 'fine feather' we get ma's^aN 'feather', yielding maN's^aN ihe'=dhadhe=khe 'the feather which you put away'. JEK] So, it looks like the conceptual khe-class or khe-gender of hiNxpe' governs the noun definite article and/or relative clause marker =khe, the evidential of a sentence in which the noun is the (informational) theme, and to the selection of a verb of placement which applies to the noun as patient (or theme in the case grammar sense). And this class/gender extends across substitution of a more generic maN's^aN 'feather' for hiNxpe' 'fine feather'. Here's another example, with u'z^iha=khe 'bag'. Dorsey 90:4-6 ... u'z^iha=khe ... ... bag the ... "KkaN=ha', du'=akha u'z^iha a'na[N]xdh ihe'=dha=ga," a'=bi=ama. grandmother VOC this bag hidden put it away he said Here the reference to the bag as u'z^iha=khe (u'z^iha=dhaN is also possible) seems to govern the choice of ihe'=...dhe 'to put away' in the next sentence. I'm a little puzzled here by the du'=akha. It seems most naturally to apply to the bad itself, but I would expect du'=khe in that case. Du'=akha seems to have an animate reference. I see several possibilities: 1) Dorsey heard and reported du'=khe as du'=akha. Bear in mind that =akha is [akh] or [akhA] (A = voiceless a) and =khe is [kh] or [khE]. 2) Du'=akha refers to the grandmother, perhaps along the lines of 'You, hide this away!' 3) Maybe du' forces akha? Or at least =akhe as a variant of =khe? One more causative example. This comes from the story in which the Trickster is caught in a tree while the robber beasts eat his turkeys, the episode following his tricking of the dancing turkeys (or ducks, etc.). Released by the tree too late he comes down and disconsolately licks the spit. Dorsey 90:62.11-12 GaN'kki hi'de khi'= egaN, And so bottom he reached again having s^aN'=xti z^aN'=z^iNga=khe gis^ni'be ihe'=dhe gdhiN' right away stick the he licked his he put it in he sat akh=ama Is^ti'niNkhe=akha PROGR QUOTE I. the Here z^aN'=z^iNga=khe governs ihe'=dhe, or, rather z^aN'=z^iNga governs =khe and ihe'=...dhe. In the same way Is^ti'niNkhe governs =akha and the =akha progressive marker. These are nt the only examples of =khe class membership governing evidentials and verbs of placement as well as articles, but they are probably more than enough. I haven't yet noticed any clashes, e.g., =khe nouns governing something other than ihe'=...dhe or non-khe-nouns governing ihe'=...dhe. I believe I did see animate nouns used with idhaN'=...dhe. I also have a couple of examples of plain ihe' 'to be in a position'. The first is from the Twins Cycle and occurs as their father (the Sun, think) comes home to discover they have disobeyed him and brought home the crying lizards. These lizards cry out when you step on their tails, and he happens to drop the deer he's killed on the lot of them, which clues him in immediately. Dorsey 90:214.16-15 tti=z^e'be=the=di uga'xpadhe= kki=z^i, door the at he threw it down when (as it may be) a'gaspa'=bi=egaN, it pressing having wa'huttaN ihe'= ama crying about it they were in a line QUOTE (Their father) throwing (the deer) down at the door, as it may be, having (thus) pressed upon (the tails of the lizards), they were crying out at this in a line (or all together as a group). The lizards are nowhere referenced nominally in this sentence, and earlier references are in terms of nouns plus the animate article, e.g., iN'j^e=wasni'be=ama 'the face-lickers' or nouns only wagdhi's^ka hi'=duba 'four-legged reptitles' or wana[N]'gdhe 'pet(s)'. Another example involves the Orphan, elegantly costumed, carrying a club that has birds (or their skins?) tied to it. Dorsey 90:593.13-14 Z^aN=we'thiN=khe ihe'=dhe= naN= bi=dhaN=di, wood striker the he laid down usually the at waz^iN'ga=akha gahutt(aN) ihe'=naN= bi=ama. bird the crying out from being hit lay usually QUOTE "Generally, when (for the period?) he laid down his club, the birds (tied to it) would lie there crying out." ... or "would cry out as it lay there." I suppose the idea is that the skins tied to the club to ornament it are magically alive. It's not clear here if the second positional ihe' is governed by z^aN=we'thiN=khe 'the club' or by the conceptual group of waz^iN'ga, though the latter have the =akha article in the sentence as cited, and the club is laid down in the first clause with ihe'=...dhe, so that it would be a better parallel if it was the thing lying. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 26 19:57:07 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:57:07 -0600 Subject: 15.1657, FYI: "Slashed C"; .... (from LinguistList) (fwd) Message-ID: A number of interested parties won't see this on the LinguistList itself. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:27:19 -0000 From: LINGUIST List To: LINGUIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: 15.1657, FYI: "Slashed C"; Language May 2004 Book Notice List -------------------------------- Message 1 ------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:28:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Deborah Anderson Subject: Feedback Needed on "Slashed C" and Unicode Feedback is requested from linguists regarding the encoding of LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE as a phonetic symbol (Unicode Public Review Issue #35). Description: At the February 2004 meeting of the Unicode Technical Committee, a proposal was considered to encode the phonetic symbol LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE. Some reservation was expressed on the part of some committee members, however, due to potential legacy encoding issues. A decision was made to give tentative approval of this character, but to prepare a public review issue to elicit feedback on the pros and cons of encoding this character. The document, written by Peter Constable, is located at: http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-35.pdf . Please send feedback via the online form: http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html or you can send an email message to me at dwanders at socrates.berkeley.edu for forwarding. Deadline for comments **8 June 2004**. This is part of an effort to solicit feedback from users of the Slashed C. If you have questions, please contact the proposal author, Peter Constable (petercon at microsoft.com) or Deborah Anderson (dwanders at socrates.berkeley.edu). Deborah Anderson Researcher, Dept. of Linguistics UC Berkeley Email: dwanders at socrates.berkeley.edu or dwanders at pacbell.net From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 26 23:57:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:57:42 -0600 Subject: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 25 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I will try to track down the last round. http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1331 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1435 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1526 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1706 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R747 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R835 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R1487 It looks like we were mostly concerned with frequencies of different demonstratives this go round, with some useful stuff on Lakota in this respect from Connie. For this I went to the LinguistList search tool for the Siouan List: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S1=siouan Searching on combinations of yonder, Demonstrative, Dorsey, and footnote proved useful. This tool is extremely useful, by the way. Incidentally, even if you don't subscribe to the LinguistList, you might want to consider going to http://www.linguistlist.org and donating. They are in their annual funds drive. I for one am thankful for their terrific archiving service. (I don't think their online donation tool is secured with SSL (https), so I always send my donation by regular mail.) From rankin at ku.edu Thu May 27 14:25:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:25:50 -0500 Subject: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote Message-ID: Did I distribute my 3 or so page handout on Siouan demonstrative cognate sets? I've sent it so several people, I think, but can't remember whom. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote > On Tue, 25 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > I will try to track down the last round. > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1331 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1435 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1526 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1706 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R747 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R835 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R1487 > > It looks like we were mostly concerned with frequencies of different > demonstratives this go round, with some useful stuff on Lakota in this > respect from Connie. > > For this I went to the LinguistList search tool for the Siouan List: > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S1=siouan > > Searching on combinations of yonder, Demonstrative, Dorsey, and footnote > proved useful. > > This tool is extremely useful, by the way. > > Incidentally, even if you don't subscribe to the LinguistList, you might > want to consider going to http://www.linguistlist.org and donating. They > are in their annual funds drive. I for one am thankful for their terrific > archiving service. (I don't think their online donation tool is secured > with SSL (https), so I always send my donation by regular mail.) > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu May 27 23:42:02 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 18:42:02 -0500 Subject: More on Noun Classes or Gender in Omaha-Ponca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > "KkaN=ha', du'=akha u'z^iha a'na[N]xdh ihe'=dha=ga," a'=bi=ama. > grandmother VOC this bag hidden put it away he said [...] > I'm a little puzzled here by the du'=akha. It seems most naturally to > apply to the bad itself, but I would expect du'=khe in that case. > Du'=akha seems to have an animate reference. I see several possibilities: > > 1) Dorsey heard and reported du'=khe as du'=akha. Bear in mind that =akha > is [akh] or [akhA] (A = voiceless a) and =khe is [kh] or [khE]. > > 2) Du'=akha refers to the grandmother, perhaps along the lines of 'You, > hide this away!' > > 3) Maybe du' forces akha? Or at least =akhe as a variant of =khe? I'd suggest a fourth possibility. I don't think that akha' necessarily has animate reference. We've previously observed the passage in which Is^ti'dhiNkhe tricks Coyote into fishing with his tail through a hole in the ice, in which the ice akha' froze. Akha' seems to be used to focus the listener's attention on an entity. Usually that entity is animate, and is usually the active agent of the verb, but we seem to have exceptions both to animacy and to agentivity. I'm not sure if we ever have exceptions to focus or not. In this example though, I think the point of akha in the phrase "du'=akha u'z^iha" is transparently to focus the grandmother's attention on "this here bag". I'm pretty sure I have run akha' used for inanimate things like pens by the speakers, and that they have found it acceptable. I'll try to check again sometime to make sure. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 28 16:03:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:03:49 -0600 Subject: More on Noun Classes or Gender in Omaha-Ponca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > John wrote: > > "KkaN=ha', du'=akha u'z^iha a'na[N]xdh ihe'=dha=ga," a'=bi=ama. > > grandmother VOC this bag hidden put it away he said > > > I'm a little puzzled here by the du'=akha. It seems most naturally > > to apply to the bad itself, but I would expect du'=khe in that case. > > Du'=akha seems to have an animate reference. ... > I'd suggest a fourth possibility. I don't think that > akha' necessarily has animate reference. We've previously > observed the passage in which Is^ti'dhiNkhe tricks Coyote > into fishing with his tail through a hole in the ice, in > which the ice akha' froze. Akha' seems to be used to focus > the listener's attention on an entity. Usually that entity > is animate, and is usually the active agent of the verb, > but we seem to have exceptions both to animacy and to > agentivity. ... That would be another problem - the lack of agency - because the bag is clearly the object here. But I'm relieved that there are other exceptions. From jkyle at ku.edu Sat May 29 16:03:31 2004 From: jkyle at ku.edu (Kyle, John H) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:03:31 -0500 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota Message-ID: While reviewing the data on lexical vs. syntactic compounds in Dakota I came across a form which has me scratching my head. Lexical compounds are formed by the concatenation of roots and contain one stressed syllable (peninitial). Syntactic compounds concatenate 'words', each with their own stress (the second stressed syllable is reduced) One of the classic examples given to show the difference between the two types of compounds is: c^he'Ga zi' (yellow kettle)(syntactic compound) c^hexzi' (brass kettle) (lexical compound) In the L compound, the c# root (c^ex or c^eG) directly attaches to zi. In the S compound the root undergoes stem formation (epenthetic final vowel and initial stress) before concatenating. My question concerns the following classic example: s^ka'l o ma'ni (he goes playing about) (syntactic compound)and s^kal o' mani (he goes about in order to play) (lexical compound) What is the nature and behavior of s^kal ? Why doesn't it appear as s^ka'la in the syntactic compound. Is it considered a C# root? And does anyone have examples of its use in other constructions? Thanks. John Kyle jkyle at ku.edu From rankin at ku.edu Sat May 29 17:00:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:00:04 -0500 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota Message-ID: The verb is /ska'ta/ and it is an "ablauting" verb (Kaw cognate /ska'je/). That makes it a "C# root" in Dakotan. The -t > -l before the boundary. Beyond that, I can't account for its behavior. Bob > s^ka'l o ma'ni (he goes playing about) (syntactic compound)and > s^kal o' mani (he goes about in order to play) (lexical compound) > What is the nature and behavior of s^kal ? Why doesn't it appear as > s^ka'la in the syntactic compound. Is it considered a C# root? And > does anyone have examples of its use in other constructions? Thanks. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat May 29 18:00:47 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:00:47 -0600 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2004, Kyle, John H wrote: > While reviewing the data on lexical vs. syntactic compounds in Dakota I > came across a form which has me scratching my head. Lexical compounds > are formed by the concatenation of roots and contain one stressed > syllable (peninitial). Syntactic compounds concatenate 'words', each > with their own stress (the second stressed syllable is reduced) One of > the classic examples given to show the difference between the two types > of compounds is: > > c^he'Ga zi' (yellow kettle)(syntactic compound) > c^hexzi' (brass kettle) (lexical compound) > > In the L compound, the c# root (c^ex or c^eG) directly attaches to zi. > In the S compound the root undergoes stem formation (epenthetic final > vowel and initial stress) before concatenating. My question concerns > the following classic example: > > s^ka'l o ma'ni (he goes playing about) (syntactic compound)and > s^kal o' mani (he goes about in order to play) (lexical compound) > > What is the nature and behavior of s^kal ? Why doesn't it appear as > s^ka'la in the syntactic compound. Is it considered a C# root? And > does anyone have examples of its use in other constructions? Thanks. Well, the underlying stem is s^ka't# right? As a non-Dakotanist I am helped here by this being a Mississippi Valley-wide set, s^ka'ta being comparable to OP s^ka'de. So the problem is that one expects a full word form of s^ka'ta in a syntactic compound? You mentioned that Santee has c^eg^azi (accent?) for 'brass kettle'. I see that Riggs does give c^he'g^aska for 'tin kettle'. Maybe exceptions occur in the opposite direction, too, with less than full word forms in some syntactic compounds. In that case, the critical factor in distinguishing the two kinds of compound is the accentuation. I always think of C-final forms in Dakotan as being in "subordinate" or compounding form, at least in Teton and Santee. I think that with certain morphemes, e.g., =lu ~ =l or =ka ~ =c^a ~ =l, Dakotan is perfectly capable of deleting an organic final vowel to achieve this C-final "subordinate" form, but perhaps historically the opposition comes about through the alternation of "complete" C-final forms and "independent" forms in which a C-final root has been rendered "independent" by adding a suffix or enclitic. This is implicit in calling -a or -A "stem forming." In some non-Siouan languages this sort of suffix is called an absolute marker when it occurs with nouns. (Not to be confused with absolutive as used in characterizing ergative case systems.) Absolutive markers are not always final vowels added to C-final stems, of course, but often there are some nouns that require absolutive markers and some that don't. This sort of things is pretty common in Uto-Aztecan, and it also occurs in Caddoan, though it is not restricted to North America. For Uta-Aztecan, Langacker (Overview of Uto-Aztecan Grammar, 77): "Absolutive suffixes are one of the more distinctive and characteristic features of UA grammar. An absolutive suffix, in UA terms, is an ending with no apparent semantic value that appears on nouns in citation forms but may drop when a noun is subjected to various morphological processes, such as affixation, compounding, or reduplication. The P-UA absolutive suffix was *-t, deriving ultimately from *t 'be' ... [it] was retained before the accusative *-a, and possibly before the plural *-m, but lost when any other morphological elements were attached." For Caddoan, Parks (Pawnee Grammar, p. 97): "An absolutive suffix -u occurs with the majority of noun stems when they stand independently, i.e., when they are not incorporated or otherwise in composition with a following stem or suffix. This elements seems to serve no other purpose than classifying the noun as a noun and rendering it absolute." Or, Rood (Wichita Grammar, p. 7): "-?a. This suffix occurs on the citation form of a majority of nouns and may even be part of other suffixes listed below. Although its meaning seems to be 'nominalized', it is not used productively to form new nouns. ... Occasionally two nouns are differentiated solely by the presence or absence of the suffix, but the suffixed form should not be taken as a derivative of the non-suffixed form." I mention this last because the examples show that simple nouns occur without the absolutive, e.g., he:c 'fat', but he:c?a 'fire'. (Hmm. Reminds me of PS *hpet 'fire'!) Of course, absolute (or absolutive) markers are characteristic of nouns, not verbs, but in Dakotan and other Siouan languages ablaut vowels, and the intimately related stem-formant vowels, and so, Dakotan C-final stems, are at least as prominent an issue with verbs as with nouns, and, of course, John's conundrum was posed in connection with verbs. However, citation forms of verbs are often effectively verbal nouns or adjectives, and subordinate incorporated verbs are generally of the same character. In addition, citation forms of nouns, as the Uto-Aztecna case shows, may be effectively predicative forms. So, the boundary between the two classes is somewhat murky. From rwd0002 at unt.edu Sun May 30 04:10:20 2004 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:10:20 -0500 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Souanists: Regarding the distinction between lexical and syntactic compounds, and the shka'l oma'ni, shkalo'mani problem, I wrote a paper on Serial Verbs in Lakota, which addresses this problem. This will be published in a volume entitled Serial Verb constructions edited by Aikhenvald and Dixon, to appear sometime in the end of 2004, beginning 2005. Willem de Reuse From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 30 14:19:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: different incorporations. Message-ID: I think it's often impossible to distinguish so-called syntactic from lexical incorporation in Siouan because, for many verbs, the two processes give homophonous results. Skata/$kata does have two forms, distinguished by accent, but the fact that both have phonological truncation strongly suggests that there is not a hard-and-fast line between the two types of incorporation, and, that, in fact, what we have is a continuum between what were earlier and later lexicalizations of particular compounds. Given the lexeme-by-lexeme nature of compound formation, this would not be surprising. You gonna give us a preview of your solution, Wim? :-) Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 2 22:08:25 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 17:08:25 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more Message-ID: Since I was the author of the original paper on the Illinois borrowing of Ohio Valley Siouan 'eight', I suppose I should weigh in on this thread. In addition to the paper in IJAL, there is a little more information that bears on the question. Virginia Siouan. Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Although there is no further reference to this tribe, it seems clear that they were Siouan, since maNiN' ~ moNniN' is Tutelo, and indeed common Siouan, for 'water' while it? is 'great, big', with an equally good Siouan pedigree. Apparently the trip to the Monytons involved going West over the mountains. The river they lived on is identified as the Kanawha, in WV. Both the Saponi and Occaneechee (also Akenatzy and other spelling variants) are mentioned several accounts from the 1670's. According to John Lederer (1670), Thomas Batts and Robert Fallam (1671) and James Needham and Gabriel Arthur (1673), the Saponies lived in the western part of Virginia in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Tutelos were some distance further to the west, and the Occaneechee to the southwest. Between 1673 and 1700 both tribes had joined the Occaneechees. Their later movements are of no consequence to us here. Other Ohio Valley Siouan. The Biloxis are not attested for certain before their 1699 location near Pascagoula. There is one reference to what was possibly Biloxi up in central Alabama at an earlier time. The Ofo were supposedly located on the Ohio River under their alias, the Mosopelea. They were traced down the Ohio and then the Mississippi by Swanton's research. They took refuge among the Taensa and later both groups, along with the Koroa, joined the Tunica, where Swanton visited them in 1907. The name Mosopelea gives rise to two separate terms for the Ofo. Bearing in mind the attested sound change by which Ofo and Biloxi lost all lexeme-initial labial sonorants, /m/ and /w/ and the change by which Common Siouan *s > /f/ in Ofo, we can derive the following names: moso (pelea) oso ofo ... the name by which they were known by Muskogean-speaking tribes who folk-etymologized it as /ofi/ 'dog' in Choctaw/Chickasaw. Also ... mosope (lea) ouspe (and several more of Swanton's spelling variants) us pe ushpe ... which is the term by which the Tunica called them during Swanton's visit. Both terms, given known sound changes, tend to confirm Swanton's identification with the Mosopelea of the upper Ohio Valley in proto-historic times. So we pretty clearly have Virginia Siouan tribes on the Kanawha R. and very likely on the Ohio R. in the 17th century. Chiwere (Ioway), on the other hand, lacks not only the putative source-word for 'eight'; it also lacks any trace of the companion term for 'seven'. So even if we accept the idea that "might have been" cognates can be accepted into evidence, the "might have been" use of a prefix *pha:- or *phe:- used to form numbers 7 and 8 of the second quine is also totally lacking. Nor do we find any trace of it in Winnebago. So I stand by my Ohio Valley Siouan/Illinois Algonquian contact story. (All the above is part of a paper I did at AAA in 1980. It's too long to recapitulate here and was precomputer, so all I have is a typescript.) Bob ----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, David Costa wrote: > It's really only one form in Tutelo (or whatever). The multiplicy of > forms is in the ears of the beholder and in MI. > > > As I recall, Bob Rankin opted for Tutelo over Ofo partly because > > > he thought Tutelo l more like MI r or n than Ofo t (which might have been > > > rather d-like). I think there are several attested Tutelo variants just as there are several in MI. Bob From EvolPub at aol.com Mon May 3 02:43:45 2004 From: EvolPub at aol.com (Tony Schiavo) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:43:45 EDT Subject: Fwd: Tutelo & Miami Message-ID: I was forwarded your discussion about Tutelo in the Ohio Valley area. My apologies if I'm going over old ground here; I tuned in late and may have missed the good stuff. In the 1674 letter of Abraham Wood describing the Needham-Arthur expedition over the Alleghenies, there's the following indication that Tutelo-Saponi was spoken along the Kanawha: "Now ye king must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his frends, mony signifying water and ton great in theire language." I once thought these Monetons may have been a displaced remnant--however, I'm not aware of any evidence that the Iroquois were attacking the Tutelo prior to the displacement of the Susquehannock around 1674-5. They were however, raiding on the Ohio years earlier. If anything, tribes would have been fleeing from the Ohio Valley, not into it from the Piedmont which seems to have been relatively untouched at this date. This may have been covered by Huberto Dixon, but there's a tradition reported around 1845 in the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser as follows: "The Indians hereabouts believe that a small remnant of the Eries still exist beyond the Mississippi. The small tribe known as the Quapaws in that region, are also believed to be remains of the Kaukwaus, the allies of the Eries." Though this may well be a late folk etymology, it looks plausible. (Lahontan says because Iroquoian lacked labials French "Ponchartrain" was pronounced "Conchartrain"). Interestingly the Quapaw apparently used longhouse dwellings (Bonnie McEwan "Indians of the Greater Southeast", p. 185.)--something I'd like to do a bit homework on. Dixon's paper on Siouan in the Ohio Valley was mentioned--would someone kindly provide the reference for that? -Claudio Salvucci Evolution Publishing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 3 13:20:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 07:20:04 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > John Koontz: > > What is the date of the Indiana Miami and Wea? My understanding is that > > at present MI communities in Oklahoma crosscut the Miami vs. Illinois > > distinction. In other words, only the Indiana Miami and Wea communities > > would be Miami without Illinois population infusions? However, ... in her > > atlas suggests ... I had meant to hold this and post it after filling in the blanks. I accidentally posted it instead. The last sentence was supposed to read "However, Helen Hornbeck Tanner, in her Atalas of Great Lakes Indian History, suggests ..." However, I was misremembering the source, which is actually Charles Callender's article Miami in HBNAI, Vol. 15, p. 687. "In 1846 the army forcibly removed the Miami from Indiana, although about half the tribe evaded the troops. Resettled in Kansas, they continued to decline. Their catastrophic loss of population after removal may parly reflect a surreptitious movement back to Indiana, although they also received increments from that area. The Kansas group eventually moved to northeast Oklahoma, where int he 1870s they joined the confederacy that the Wea and PIankashaw had already established with the Peoria." In other words, there might be mechanisms by which Illinois influence could be conveyed to Indiana Miami. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 3 15:20:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:20:20 -0600 Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king > must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony > signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne > situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and > flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Would the tide ebb and flow in the Kanawha or Ohio? This is just a matter of curiosity, since, even if it wouldn't, there's no obvious alternative, and I'm certainly not questioning the existence of location of the Moneton on this or any other basis. I assume the interest of tides to the English at this period relates to the possibility of finding an outlet to the sea across the Appalachians. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon May 3 15:41:30 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:41:30 -0500 Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > Would the tide ebb and flow in the Kanawha or Ohio? Lunar tides certainly wouldn't (detectably, at least), but the word 'tide' is also used for fluctuations in river-level caused by variations in precip in the drainage-basin; e.g., Thomas Jefferson "In the Summer months the boats always hold themselves in readiness [on the river] to catch the accidental tides from showers of rain." Alan From rankin at ku.edu Mon May 3 16:43:10 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:43:10 -0500 Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: I think they're pretty much established from context as having been on the Kanawha. I agree with Alan that 'tide' had a broader usage in several senses in colonial times when water transportation was more common. It took me aback for a moment too though. I see another contributor came up with the same quotation about the Monytons. My citation of Tutelo /maNiN'/ should read /maNniN'/. Sorry 'bout the typo. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:20 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Tides (Re: 'eight' some more) On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king > must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony > signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne > situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and > flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Would the tide ebb and flow in the Kanawha or Ohio? This is just a matter of curiosity, since, even if it wouldn't, there's no obvious alternative, and I'm certainly not questioning the existence of location of the Moneton on this or any other basis. I assume the interest of tides to the English at this period relates to the possibility of finding an outlet to the sea across the Appalachians. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 4 06:24:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 00:24:16 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, "Now ye king > must goe to give ye monetons a visit which were his friends, mony > signifiying water and ton great in theire language. Ye monyton towne > situated upon a very great river att which place ye tide ebbs and > flowes...." (Alvord and Bidgood, 1912, 221) Although there is no > further reference to this tribe, it seems clear that they were Siouan, > since maNiN' ~ moNniN' is Tutelo, and indeed common Siouan, for 'water' > while it? is 'great, big', with an equally good Siouan pedigree. > Apparently the trip to the Monytons involved going West over the > mountains. The river they lived on is identified as the Kanawha, in WV. Since I know the old Northwest area like the back of my head, I thought I'd do a little looking at a map before commenting on the issue of the proximity of Miami-Illinois and Tutelo or Ioway-Otoe. I've attached this somewhat arbitrarily to Bob's reference placing the Moneton town on the Kanawha. The Kanawha comes out of southwest Virgina and runs across the bottom half of West Virginia to join the Ohio. I don't really have any problem with this being a pointer to the path of the Tutelo-related groups eastward or an indicater that they were on both sides of the Appalachians and perhaps new east of it at contact. The Tutelo language certainly didn't originate in Virginia. It can only have moved there. The only question is when and where they might have been at various points before that. As I understand Michael, the Miami-Illinois are thought to have moved west from the Maumee River, which runs east into Lake Eirie at about the Michigan line, i.e., at Toledo, Ohio. The Ioway - and so a linguist presumes, the whole Ioway-Otoe-Missouria complex - are thought to have been associated with the Oneota Orr Focus - a rather fuzzy older subdivision of Oneota which turns out to refer generally to the area east and west of the Mississippi and north and south of the Minnesota-Iowa line. Archaeologists don't think quite the same way about lingistic connections that linguists do and spread things even further by assuming somewhat implausibly that the Ioway-Otoe-Missouria division goes back to 1000 AD or earlier and assinging Otoe and Missouria to other divisions of Oneota further west and south. It's not that unlikely that there was an Ioway-Otoe-Missouria variant of Mississippi Valley Siouan in 1000 AD with multiple political subdivisions, of course. But I don't really see the modern divisions as say, 600 years old at contact. Some merging and redividing over time seems more likely. Ioway-Otoe-Missouri, of course, is extremely close to Winnebago, which Michael would like to place in the Chicago area, though there are a number of competing versions and anti-versions of Winnebago origins. In general there is a recent tendency to see Illinois as full of Oneota and therefore possibly Mississippi Valley Siouan groups after about 1400. One presumes these groups spoke something like Ioway-Otoe, or Winnebago, or Dhegiha, and possibly the antecedents of some of these divisions of MVS. With that set of geographical observations made, I would like to point out that the mouth of the Maumee (Toledo) is somewhat closer to Chicago than it is to the mouth of the Kanawha. There's another problem, too, which is that southern Ohio, including the mouth of the Kanawha, is within the area of the Ft. Ancient Culture, which is often associated with Shawnee. I believe Shawnee isn't (currently) reported to exhibit any Tutelo influence, and it would seem to be in the way of the most direct sort of Tutelo-Illinois interactions. Of course, if Ft. Ancient is actually Tutelo, things would be more convenient. Or if the Tutelo had actually spread south from western Pennsylvania into West Virginia and western Virginia, rather than west from southern Ohio. Not that Pittsburg is really any closer to Toledo than Toledo is to Chicago. I think that the Tutelo are sometimes associated with the Monongahela Culture, which was located roughly in western Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. This, of course, is the area where were are more or less reduced to a collection of placenames (Shawnee, Siouan, and ???) as far as pre-contact inhabitants and a depopulated wilderness by the time Europeans were passing through the area. I have never read any literature directly on Monongahela. I have impression it exists to be assigned irrelevant materials not belonging to a culture from a surrounding area. It doesn't help a whole lot to see early Ioway-Otoe as confined west of the Mississippi if Illinois is still mainly Siouan, unless perhaps this Siouan is Dhegiha. If it's Winnebago or "unidentified," then we have to wonder how they said 'eight'. Modern Winnebago doesn't use anything relevant, but Illinois is a lot of space, and we might expect some variation over a Winnebago that filled even northern Illinois. If the presumed Siouan speakers in Illinois were Tutelo, then we have a fairly impressive migration on our hands. Not for a small group, of course, but certainly for a fairly large and influential one, and we have to ask why they travelled the direction they would seem to have in the 1400-1650 time span. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 13:12:25 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:12:25 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Quoting "R. Rankin" : > > Virginia Siouan. Maj. General Abraham Wood wrote to John Richards in 1674, > "Now > ye king must goe to give ye monetons > (Alvord > and Bidgood, 1912, 221) > it seems clear that they were Siouan, since maNiN' ~ moNniN' is Tutelo, and > indeed common Siouan, for 'water' while it? is 'great, big', with an equally > good Siouan pedigree. Apparently the trip to the Monytons involved going > West > over the mountains. The river they lived on is identified as the Kanawha, > in > WV. > > > >> The Ofo were supposedly located on the Ohio River under their alias, the > Mosopelea. They were traced down the Ohio and then the Mississippi by > Swanton's > research. They took refuge among the Taensa and later both groups, along > with > the Koroa, joined the Tunica, where Swanton visited them in 1907. The name > Mosopelea gives rise to two separate terms for the Ofo. Bearing in mind the > attested sound change by which Ofo and Biloxi lost all lexeme-initial labial > sonorants, /m/ and /w/ and the change by which Common Siouan *s > /f/ in Ofo, > we > can derive the following names: > > > > moso (pelea) > > oso > > ofo > > > > ... the name by which they were known by Muskogean-speaking tribes who > folk-etymologized it as /ofi/ 'dog' in Choctaw/Chickasaw. Also ... > > > > mosope (lea) > > ouspe (and several more of Swanton's spelling variants) > > us pe > > ushpe > > > > ... which is the term by which the Tunica called them during Swanton's > visit. This is curious, but I find this analysis far-fetched. Plus, what is that -lea, and what happened to it? > > > > Both terms, given known sound changes, tend to confirm Swanton's > identification > with the Mosopelea of the upper Ohio Valley in proto-historic times. > > > > So we pretty clearly have Virginia Siouan tribes on the Kanawha R. and very > likely on the Ohio R. in the 17th century. I don't doubt this. > > >> > > So I stand by my Ohio Valley Siouan/Illinois Algonquian contact story. > > > > (All the above is part of a paper I did at AAA in 1980. It's too long to > recapitulate here and was precomputer, so all I have is a typescript.) > > > > Bob > I found the identification of "Moneton" very interesting and using The linguistic analysis of "Mosopelea" does not hold water. One of the problems is that Bob based his analysis on a La Sallian form of the ethnonym "Mosopelea" (La Salle was a hopeless monolingual) and failed to go back to the original recording/spelling of the name. Before looking at what "Mosopelea" is, let's look at what it is (also) not: Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin?s explanation that represents Shawnee /m?$- ?big? plus /peleewa/?turkey? is either whimsical or forced. Such an analysis simply does not stand up to either historical or philological scrutiny. In her eagerness to designate the term Shawnee, the historian failed to realize that the demonym first came from the plume of Jacques Marquette in 1673--and this is critical to the analysis of the term- and it appeared subsequently on the maps describing the Mississippi voyage that were based on Jolliet?s intelligence?and there is no evidence that either Marquette or Jolliet ever met a Shawnee Indian. If they did, neither would have been able to communicate with himher since Marquette and Jolliet could not speak Shawnee. Even though Shawnee is an Algonquian language, it is profoundly different from and mutually unintelligible with the six Algonquian languages that Marquette knew. Now, Marquette?s early relation of 1669-70, written from the Mission du Saint-Esprit at Chaquamegon on the south shore of Lake Superior, does speak of a visit that the Illinois had received earlier in their own country from some Shawnee. In fact, the Illinois boy from whom Marquette learned the Illinois language had witnessed that very visit. However, Marquette did not meet any Shawnee in his lifetime and Jolliet himself would have obtained information about the Mosopelea from the Illinois, not from the Shawnee. Of course, these facts do not imply that the people known as the Mosopelea were not Shawnee speakers; they simply show that the historically recorded etymon did not come from the Shawnee language. Given the earliest recording of this ethnonym, which is (not "Mosopelea") from Marquette?s map of the Mississippi; given the year the name was coined, 1673, a time well before any contact between Frenchmen and Shawnee had occurred?or indeed could occur; given the fact that the only Mississippi valley language Marquette spoke was Miami-Illinois; and above all, given the internal linguistic evidence provided by the word itself, presented below, is no doubt a Miami-Illinois ethnonym. Linguistically speaking, Marquette?s consists of two elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/?deer?, phonetic [moonswa]~ [moonzwa]. This term not only appears in Marquette?s . The French- Illinois dictionary of the missionary Antoine-Robert Le Boullenger (after 1719) also has it and spells it , and in the Illinois-French dictionary (around the turn of the 18th century), commonly attributed to Jacques Gravier, we have the form that confirms this analysis: . These historical transcriptions of clearly exhibit the commonly occurring phenomenon of sibilant prenasalization, represented in this term by orthographic <-ns->. Among the Great Lakes Algonquian languages this phonological event is for all intents and purposes unique to Miami-Illinois. In the Miami-Illinois language this prenasalization, as well as the optional voicing in Old Illinois of /-s-/ to [z], are non-contrastive features that ultimately derive from the preceding /m/. This voicing of /s/ to [z] shows up historically in Minet?s La Salle-based spelling . <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- Illinois /pile:wa/?turkey?. The /-w-/, present in the independent word for ?turkey,? does not occur in the composite term because in Miami-Illinois at the phonetic level, trisyllabic words with a short first vowel such as /pileewa/ lose the /-w-/ when prefixed. This can be illustrated , in fact, with another ?turkey?-related word from the same language, the word for the domestic turkey, which also loses /-w-/: [waapipilia].(As one might expect, the term for the domestic turkey literally means ?white turkey?.) Therefore, for our purposes, what these spellings perfectly reflect is the same phonological reality as that found in Marquette?s . The underlying /pileewa/of , just as in /waapipilia/, is no longer trisyllabic and thus does not evince /-w-/ in the actual, spoken form of this place-name. Of course, determining what language comes from and what the ethnonym signifies is a rather simple affair when compared to the daunting challenge of determining who the Mosopelea were. In truth, the only thing we know for certain about the ethnic identity of these people is that they were originally a middle Ohio Valley population whose lives were shattered in the mid-1600s and reduced to just a few individuals by the Iroquois. That is obviously not much to go on. Even though it is not the intent of this work to explore in depth the question of this group?s identity, a few ideas that have emerged from our onomastic research merit a brief mention. The Mosopelea could have been Shawnee speakers, as Wheeler-Voegelin suggested, in spite of the fact that her hypothesis rests partially on her mistaken belief that where they appear on Marquette?s map, the Shawnee appear on the Franquelin-Jolliet map titled ?Nouuelle Decouverte de Plusieurs Nations Dans la Nouuelle France en L'annee 1673-1674? and on Randin?s chart. On the Franquelin-Jolliet map, however, the Shawnee are in fact living up a southern tributary of the lower Ohio later identified cartographically as the ?River of the Shawnee?; and on the same map the Mosopelea are located below the Arkansas River opposite the Taensa. On Marquette?s chart, the are just below the mouth of the Ohio on the east bank of the Mississippi. Historical accounts agree that the Mosopelea fled south out of the Ohio Valley when the Iroquois invaded the region in the mid-1600s. Therefore, since we know that the Shawnee had long established connections with southern tribes, the Taensa for example, it is not impossible that the Mosopelea were Shawnee. Additional observations by Wheeler-Voegelin with respect to the Mosopelea are noteworthy. Especially attractive is her suggestion that they were the Indians described on the Manitoumie maps as having guns, and noted by Marquette as being at war with the Quapaw. Furthermore, her statement that some Seneca had told LaSalle in 1668-69 that the Mosopelea were Shawnee is also curious. In fact, this is perhaps the best part of her theory. I would agree her when she dismisses Swanton?s claim that the Mosopelea were Ofo, for there is no ethno-historical evidence of this or other Siouan participation in the region bracketed by the so-called Fort Ancient Tradition of the middle Ohio valley, an area which was home to the proto-historic Mosopelea. Of course, at the same time, no one has yet identified the late prehistoric Ohio valley Siouans archaeologically. At this point, I could tentatively agree with Wheeler-Voeglin?s hypothesis and further propose that Marquette?s may refer to either the Deer and Turkey clans of the Shawnee or the Deer band/moietie of the Turkey clan of the Shawnee. Even so, this theory concerning the ethnic identification of the Mosopolea requires additional and convincing support. (Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin's ideas are in "Ethnohistory of Indian Use and Occupation in Ohio and Indiana Prior to 1795, in David Agee Horr, ed., American Indian Ethnohistory/North Central and Northeastern Indiana, 2 vols. (New York and London: Garland, 1974), volume 1, around pages 44-52.) Michael From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 13:20:39 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:20:39 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <1083676345.409796b9d9457@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 May 2004 mmccaffe at indiana.edu wrote: This should read: ..."Moneton" very interesting and useful. The linguistic..." > > > I found the identification of "Moneton" very interesting and using The > linguistic analysis of "Mosopelea" does not hold water. I blame this oversight on the departure of Bob Edwards from "Morning Edition". Michael From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue May 4 13:48:04 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:48:04 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <1083676345.409796b9d9457@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Michael wrote: > Linguistically speaking, Marquette?s consists of two > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/?deer?, phonetic [moonswa]~ > [moonzwa]. ... > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > Illinois /pile:wa/?turkey?. Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 14:01:36 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:01:36 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <40979F14.9070308@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Alan, Yeah, no doubt it's unusual. In fact, Bob joked a couple of years ago about this and suggested that it reminded him of a jackalope. My sense is that it may not even be one word but two. It's hard to say, since the -8- could stand for /-wa/ or the contraction /-o(o)/. However, to someone who knows Miami-Illinois and the the historical sources of that language, jumps out as clearly as, say, "Jacksonsville" would to a speaker of English. Michael On Tue, 4 May 2004, Alan Hartley wrote: > Michael wrote: > > > Linguistically speaking, Marquette?s consists of two > > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/?deer?, phonetic [moonswa]~ > > [moonzwa]. > ... > > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > > Illinois /pile:wa/?turkey?. > > Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? > > Alan > > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue May 4 14:03:57 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:03:57 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more Message-ID: No, it's the variety of Jackalope that lived on the Ohio River in proto-historic times. Attested from fossil remains of the horns and large fan tail of the male of the species. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Hartley" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:48 AM Subject: Re: 'eight' some more > Michael wrote: > > > Linguistically speaking, Marquette?s consists of two > > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/?deer?, phonetic [moonswa]~ > > [moonzwa]. > ... > > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > > Illinois /pile:wa/?turkey?. > > Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? > > Alan > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 4 14:10:41 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:10:41 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: <004d01c431e0$b764fa20$10b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Bob's right. In fact, a recent entire specimen, perfectly preserved, has been excavated at Big Bone Lick. On Tue, 4 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > No, it's the variety of Jackalope that lived on the Ohio River in proto-historic > times. Attested from fossil remains of the horns and large fan tail of the male > of the species. > > :-) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Hartley" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: 'eight' some more > > > > Michael wrote: > > > > > Linguistically speaking, Marquette?s consists of two > > > elements. The first is Old Illinois /mooswa/?deer?, phonetic > [moonswa]~ > > > [moonzwa]. > > ... > > > <-pelea>, the second segment of , is transparently Miami- > > > Illinois /pile:wa/?turkey?. > > > > Nice analysis, but wouldn't 'deer-turkey' be a very peculiar construction? > > > > Alan > > > > > > > "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." -Groucho Marx "When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." -Gracie Allen From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 4 15:26:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:26:02 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > However, to someone who knows Miami-Illinois and the the historical > sources of that language, jumps out as clearly as, say, > "Jacksonsville" would to a speaker of English. Or perhaps a more apt comparison would be Jackalopeville. However, I don't think Bob is necessarily claiming that the name is Siouan, only that the Ofo were answering it to it and variants of it, to the extent that at the turn of the nineteenth century they were using a version that had been put through characteristically Ofo sound changes. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 4 15:27:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:27:34 -0600 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Bob's right. In fact, a recent entire specimen, perfectly preserved, has > been excavated at Big Bone Lick. I suppose it's in the museum next to the cat with a squash vine twining around it? From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue May 4 15:46:12 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:46:12 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > the Ofo were answering it to it and variants of it Too many it's. Alan From rankin at ku.edu Tue May 4 16:06:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:06:46 -0500 Subject: 'eight' some more Message-ID: @!#$%&, I knew that if I rejoined this thread I'd have to retype my whole 1980 paper. :-) OK, here is the progression reproduced from Swanton et al. I'm sure we've been thru this before, but I can't remember when. Start with: mosopelea in various spellings as Michael points out. On the Ohio R. 1. SIOUAN LANGUAGES VARIABLY TRANSFER NASALITY OFF THE V IN /wVN/ sequences. 2. BILOXI AND OFO LOSE INITIAL *m- AND *w-. (there are many noun examples) ouispe Iberville 1699 oussipe Penicaut 1700 ounspik Gravier 1700 onspee LaHarpe 1722 ouesperie Coxe 1741 (some of these forms account for the missing original -lea ending) ouespere Coxe 1741 u$pi Swanton 1909 (Tunica for the Ofo) u$pie Swanton 1912 Ofo changes /s/ to /f/ fairly late, because Ossogoula is also attested for them (presumably from Muskogean speakers, given the -goula ending). There's more, but I've gotta run to class now. Maybe I should redo the paper for the Siouan conference. Anyhow, I have problems with moose-turkey as an ethnonym even if they are possible clan names. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:26 AM Subject: Re: 'eight' some more > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > > However, to someone who knows Miami-Illinois and the the historical > > sources of that language, jumps out as clearly as, say, > > "Jacksonsville" would to a speaker of English. > > Or perhaps a more apt comparison would be Jackalopeville. > > However, I don't think Bob is necessarily claiming that the name is > Siouan, only that the Ofo were answering it to it and variants of it, to > the extent that at the turn of the nineteenth century they were using a > version that had been put through characteristically Ofo sound changes. > > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue May 4 18:30:03 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:30:03 +0100 Subject: travel to Wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 28/4/04 2:45 am, "Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC" wrote: > > Yes, I'll keep a list of arrival times and driving routes and such, as > people let me know their plans, and in a few weeks we can match riders up > with cars. So far we've got more ride offers (John/David and Rory) than > ridees (Carolyn), but a couple of other people have mentioned flying > without naming specific times, so there may be more rides wanted as > everyone's plans get finalized. > > Keep those paper titles coming... I've heard from a dozen or so people so > far, with lots of fascinating paper topics! > > Best, > Catherine > > > > OK, thanks David, I'll continue to coordinate through/with Catherine. > Probably most folks haven't made firm plans yet. I'm surprised at myself to > be this early. > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > > We need to be sure to coordinate this. I'm going to be driving and John > will be my passenger, but we probably won't get to eastern Nebraska until > toward evening. Catherine, I think you should collect a list of people > and arrival times and see if you need help with transportation. I'd be > happy to do an airport run if I'm there in time. Carolyn, you better make > firm arrangements with Catherine rather than with me or John. > > Best to all, > David > > > > > Dear Catherine and those concerned I'm coming in to Sioux City at 18.20 on the 8th of May And leaving on the 13th of May from Sioux City at 16.45. I will have a car. Bruce Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 04:47:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 22:47:01 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <001601c43092$11145480$1fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Chiwere (Ioway), on the other hand, lacks not only the putative > source-word for 'eight'; it also lacks any trace of the companion term > for 'seven'. This is quite true, IO and Winnebago as attested both lack not only all trace of a *hpa- or *hpe-based 'eight' term, but also all trace of a comparably based companion term for 'seven'. On the other hand, so do Tutelo and Ofo, right? The only languages with companion 'seven' and 'eight' terms are Omaha-Ponca, Kaw, and Quapaw (with *hpe-forms) and Biloxi, which has an idosyncratic construction based on (a)hudi, which Dorsey (or Swanton?) explain as "on the other hand?" It might also be '... (more) come'. Osage lacks the 'eight' form typical in Dhegiha, having replaced it with hki'etoNpa, which looks like a sort of reciprocal of 'four'. The old word hpedhabriN was "archaic" in LaFlesche's time. The forms from my earlier posting, perhaps open to some corrections, are repeated below: Tu Bi Of 'two' noNoN'paa noN'pa nuN'pha 'three' laa'ni(N) da'ni(N) ta'ni(N) 'seven' saakoo'miNiN noN'pahudi fa'kumi(N) 'eight' palaa'ni(N) dan'hudi' pa'tani(N) Te OP IO Wi 'two' nuN'pa naNba' nuN(uN)'we nuNuN'p 'three' ya'mni(N) dha'bdhiN da(a)'i daani' 'seven' s^ako'wiN ppe'dhaNba sa(a)'hmaN s^aagoo'wiN 'eight' s^aglo'gha ppe'dhabdhiN greeraa'briN harumaN'k Things in Mandan and Crow-Hidatsa, as I recall it, are quite different. The reconstructions supported by these forms are: 'two' *nuNuN'pa 'three' *raa'priN 'seven' *s^aako'wiN 'eight' ??? In IO 'seven' looks like it comes from *s^aakwaN (= *s^aak + waN ?), which, if *s^aakowiN is essentially *s^aak(V) + owiN, might be some sort of analogical revision of it. Forms like -wiN and -waN suggest 'one', of course, though it's not clear to me what 'one' might be in connection with 'seven'. As I mentioned before in passing, since Winnebago usually agrees closely with IO in lexical shifts like this, Winnebago s^aagoo'wiN seems so close to the reconstructed form as attested in Dakotan that I rather wonder if might even be a Dakotan loan. The interesting thing to notice about Tutelo's and Ofo's lack of a companion 'seven' term is that they have instead reflexes of the non-companionate *s^aako'wiN. One might suppose that the 'eight' form or forms develop first and the companion 'seven' forms are created by analogy with them, but it seems to me more likely that the non-companionate and some form of companionate forms existed in parallel, and that the companionate series involved a complete set of forms for 'six' to 'nine' or even 'ten'. Or one might imagine for 'ten' in the companionate series a 'two fives' form like *saa'ptaN nuN'pa. This is entirely hypothetical, of course; no companion forms for other than 'seven' and 'eight' are attested and no 'two fives' form, either, though, as we have seen, Osage as a sort of 'pair of fours' form for 'eight' and Omaha-Ponca use a 'two sixes' form for 'twelve' instead of the regular agdhiN' + N 'sitting on it + N' teen form. The 'two Ns' construction recurs in Siouan, though it always looks quite secondary. Also interesting in light of Osage *hkieto'pa 'eight' is P(MV)S *kyee'praN 'ten'. Perhaps *kyee'- is a contraction of *hki-e-, though *praN doesn't look like *saa'ptaN 'five' at all and this sort of contraction doesn't seem especially likely to me at the moment. If the companionate and non-companionate 'higher digits' existed in parallel, then the present series in many cases are a mixture of the two sets, with some substitutions of new forms, especially alternate companionate forms and descriptive innovations for 'nine'. It might be more proper to refer to the non-companionate and companionate series as 'decimal' and 'quinary'. The companionate or quinary terms might also be essentially descriptions of hand motions in counting. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 08:00:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 02:00:37 -0600 Subject: Medial *pr Message-ID: This is long and those not interested in historical phonology (or perhaps numerals) may wish to skip it. I thought I'd come back to the issue of medial *pr in IO, since from my point of view the two main obstacles to a hypothesis of MI paraare ~ palaani < Pre-Chiwere **phataaniN are (1) that the l in Tutelo *p(h)alaaniN is a better match for MI l ~ r, even if Pre-Chiwere /t/ was as d-like as modern IO /t/ (usually written "d"), and (2) I can't be absolutely positive that the "br" in attested IO gree'raabriN is non-native. Of course, in the first case MI l ~ r is also not a very good match for Ofo's t in pata'ni(N), either. (Ofo, not Otoe.) Only Tutelo really works as far as attested forms, and, of course, an attested form, like a bird in the hand, is an attractive option. Defence attorneys can appeal to hypothetical alternate murderers unknown in explaining a corpse, but you can't convict a hypothetical murderer, and perhaps one shouldn't try to etymologize on a basis of a hypothetical etymon. I understand the reluctance of folks to believe in a hypothetical IO or IO-like 'eight' along the lines of *phadaaniN, especially if I can't be totally convincing that the -raabriN part of IO gree'raabriN 'eight' is alien. So let me return to contention number one, which is just that -raabriN is a very odd-looking form of PS *raa'priN 'three' to find in IO. If you don't believe that, you're not going to believe that a hypothetical earlier *pha'daaniN or *phe'daaniN or even *gree'daaniN would be a more likely form, and you're not going to believe that any of these forms might have existed to conceivable influence MI. I hope it will be clear that you can believe that -raabriN stands out like a sore thumb in IO without getting into the question of where MI 'eight' comes from at all. Point one is simply that IO 'three' is *not* *raa'briN. It is daa'niN. To be more accurate, it is [daaiN], with /n/ as [] (enye) before a front vowel. Moreover, Winnebago 'three' is not *raapiN'niN, but daaniN', with a parallel development. These forms that do *not* occur are what would happen if PS *raa'priN 'three' developed as expected, or at least if it developed in the most obvious way. Two things happen to prevent this. One is that the initial *r becomes *R and *R becomes d ~ j^ in IO and d in Winnebago. It's *R, not *t, because, though *t becomes d ~ j^ in IO, too, and is indistinguishable from *R there, in Winnebago *t becomes invariant j^ (or c^in final position), which is quite distinguishable from *R. Winnebago daaniN' 'three' (and not *j^aaniN') implies PS *Raa'niN 'three' (and not *taa'niN), and the same PS form *Raa'niN can also account for IO daa'niN. The second thing that happens tends to explain the first. This is the substitution of medial n for medial *pr. In fact, what happens is that *pr in the middle of 'three' becomes *R, too, and that *R looks like n before nasal vowels. In other words, Winnebago and IO 'three' are from *raa'priN via an intermediate form *Raa'RiN. While the shift of initial *r to *R is unexpected and irregular, the shift of medial *pr to *R is probably entirely regular. I say this because a number of other *pr in Winnebago and IO have taken this route. In particular, this happens to *pr in noun initials and to *pr where it occurs in the first persons of *r-stem verbs. Some sets: PMV Te OP IO Wi HAND *ru- y dhi- ru- ~ ri- ru- 'tongue' *ree'Si c^hez^i' dhe(e)'ze re(e)'dhe reezi' 'uncle' *(i)Re'ki lek(s^i') (i)ne'gi ij^e'ga dee'g(a) 'male' *pro'(ka) bloka' nu(u)'(ga) doo'ge (c^he)do'(k) A1+r... *p-r... b-l... b-dh... (ha)-d... d... 'flat' *pra's(ka) blas(ka') bdha's(ka) bra'(ke) para's S = fricative showing multipel grades, e.g., *s and *s^. In these sets: - HAND ru- is the familiar hand or pushing instrumental, with a well-behaved *r. - 'tongue' *ree'Si, shows initial *r in a body part noun, a context where Dakotan (Teton) c^h reflects *y instead of *r, a development in many Dakotan body part nouns. In the other stocks *r develops as *r would normally. Conceivably the noun is really *yee'Si and *y > *r between third person possessor *i- (etc.) and the following noun. This is not clear. - 'uncle' (mother's brother) *i-Re'ki shows *R. Dakotan (Teton) l, OP n before an oral vowel, and Winnebago d that doesn't become j^ are the particular marks of this correspondence. In other MV Siouan languages *R is indistinguishable from *t. - 'male' *pro'-ka (often with the noun former -ka in one or more of its reflexes) shows initial *pr in a noun, which behaves as *pr in Dakotan, but is elsewhere *R. - A1 + r..., or the first person of *r-stems like those formed with *ru- shows *pr in Dakotan and Dhegiha, but *R in IO and Wineebago (with added regular A1 ha in IO). - 'flat' *pra's, sometimes extended with *ka, shows *pr at the start of a verb stem, i.e., where first person inflection does not provide the *p, which is instead an organic part of the stem. This behaves as *pr across the board. We have to assume that the pattern of behavior with *pr above involves some degree of analogical levelling. It is entertaining to imagine that Siouan sound laws might be conditioned by morphological and/or lexical considerations, but it seems more likely that *pr became *R in initial position in early Dhegiha, Winnebago, and IO while remaining *pr non-initially and that the various morphological contexts sorted out differently in terms of whether the resulting *R ~ *pr alternation levelled to *R or *pr. For example, *R won across the board with nouns, lost across the board with verb stem initials, and won in inflection in Winnebago and IO, but not Dhegiha. It's been suggested that some of these *pr might be *wr or *br, but the patterns of correspondence, whatever the reconstructions may be, fall out exactly by the morphological contexts, not randomly mingled, and I am not easy with a scheme that restricts, say *pr to nouns, *br to inflection, and *wr to verbs. Besides, there are reasons why we might expect the initial labial to come from *wV- in all of these cases. So, I prefer to see these cases all as *pr (maybe *[br]) that does not contrast with *wr, and that in many cases comes from *wV-r, but develops differently in different contexts. So far I have only considered *r, *R, and *pr before oral vowels. It turns out that *r before nasal vowels develops more or less as an n, except that sometimes it stays r (or whatever *r becomes), usually in verbs. If we try to see nasalization of *r to n as not occurring in verbs (in the relevant languages, e.g., OP) then the exceptions are those verbs where *r is always n. I conclude that I don't quite understand the interaction of *r and nasality, but I won't go into the examples. As far as *R before nasal vowels, it seems not to occur. Maybe that explains the anomalous n-verbs - *R/__VN is always n, though *r is not? Again, this is something of a side issue, and I'm not going to go into it here. So, that brings us to *pr before nasal vowels, and here we have some clear examples. PMV Te OP IO Wi 'water' *priN mni(N)' niN(iN)' niN(iN)' niNiN' 'smell' *-praN -mna(N) -bdhaN -braN -paNnaN This latter example here is the stinky kind of smell, or at least 'to have an odor of', which is often found with the *o- locative. I'm not thinking of any definitely *rVN... verbs to do inflection with. The cases that come close seem to be really *yVN... or to have epenthetic *r in the third and sometimes second persons on a stem *(?)VN... Passing regretfully on to conclusions we can see that *pr in verb stems behaves pretty much the same before nasal vowels as before oral ones. But in nouns it is mn in Dakotan, where it was bl (Teton of course) before oral vowels. And in nouns elsewhere it looks like an n, or just like *r looks when a nasal vowel follows it. So, we have our choice of saying that *pr in nouns before nasal vowels becomes *r which naturally behaves as *r would behave before a nasal vowel, becoming n, or that *pr in nasal nouns becomes *R as it does in oral nouns, and that *R behaves like *r before nasal vowels and becomes n. (Maybe it makes sense to think of anomalous n in verbs as *R/__VN? But I digress - as usual.) On that note, I return to 'three'. It seems that *pr PS *raa'priN becomes n, leading to *Raa'niN because *pr/__VN in medial position acts like n. There's still that nagging initial *R in *Raa'niN (or really *Raa'RiN) which derives irregularly from *r. Perhaps this is because Pre-Proto-Winnebago-IO had *praa'priN for 'three'? The initial *pr would need explaining, but the phonology would be regular. The initial *pr might be influence from the medial *pr, or, there are some constructions in which numrals receive *wV prefixes, and perhaps this is the source of the contamination. The former seems more likely because there's no trace of *wV- prefixation running amuck on other Winnebago-IO numerals that I know of. Based on the foregoing, I am proposing that medial *pr behaves like noun-initial *pr in Winnebago and IO. But what is medial *pr and are there other cases of it? The whole concept of (root) mediality in Siouan is fraught with difficulties. The cannonical Siouan root is a (C)CV or (C)CVCV form, and the last V is often a bit uncertain or arbitrary or missing in the bisyllabic cases. There just aren't many (C)CVCCV stems. Anything with a heavier or longer structure than (C)CV(CV) is highly suspect, as a root. Even forms like (C)CVCVN are likely not to be a single root. You can, of course, get much longer forms by compounding, derivational prefixing, enclisis, and inflection - or combinations of these. Longer forms are also sometimes loans, as in cases like Teton s^agla's^a 'British person' or OP kku'kkusi 'pig' or kku'kkumiN 'cucumber'. When not loans they must be suspected of involving a compound, possibly an old compound no longer transparent, of the form (C)CVC-CV or (C)CV-(C)CV. In many cases inflectional patterns suggest that to native perceptions "no longer etymologically transparent" and "not obviously a compound" are two different things, since forms like this are often the infixing or multiply inflected verbs. With this in mind, I have the following candidates for medial *pr in mind, though I am not sure some or all of them do not involve compounds or derivational prefixing and in some cases I am essentially positive that they do. PMV Te OP IO Wi 'three' *raa'priN ya'mni(N) dhaa'bdhiN daa'niN daaniN' 'bean' *huN'priNka omni(N)'c^a hiNbdhiN'ge uNuN'niNge huNuNniN'k woB *(i)hti'pro thiblo' (i)tti'nu (i)c^hiN'do (hi)c^ido(ra) 'ten' *kyee'praN (wi)kc^e'mna(N) gdhe'b(dh)aN gree'braN kerepaNnaN' Note that Winnebago 'ten' usually has (h)iz^aN 'one' appended to it. 'Bean' is suspected of being a loan, perhaps ultimately from Uto-Aztecan, and the initial syllable is very irregular across the Siouan languages that have versions of it, so the loan was probably fairly late, i.e., not into Proto-Siouan or even Proto-Mississippi Valley. The abbreviation woB stands for 'woman's older brother'. This form in particular may be a a compound 'house' + 'male', i.e., something like 'household (or lineage) male'. OP has simplfied gdhee'bdhaN 'ten' to gdhee'baN since the earliest recording of OP 'ten', probably sometime in the middle 1800s. Three of these four forms have *pr becoming *R (or n before a nasal vowel) in IO and Winnebago. The exception is 'ten', and, of course the final -raabriN in IO 'eight' is exceptional, too. I would expect 'ten' *gree'naN in IO and 'eight' *gree'daaniN. I do not know why either is exceptional, though my hypothesis with 'eight' has been that it is a loan, even though no other Siouan language has a gree-N construction for any 5+N numeral, let alone 'eight'. It would be difficult to maintain that 'ten' was a loan, too, because it is also exceptional in Winnebago, which has an innovated form haruwaN'k for 'eight'. So, if 'ten' is a loan, it would have to have been an early loan, which might prove problematic in explaining the Miami-Illinois form as a (fairly) recent loan of a preceding form. One might explain retention of *pr as br in 'eight' as due to the rhythmic structure of 'eight' (CVV'CVprV), but the rhythmic structure of 'three' and 'ten' is much the same (CVV'prV), and 'three' changes *pr to *R (n), while 'ten' does not. I will leave matters at that point for now. Additional examples of medial *pr would be welcome! From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed May 5 15:31:52 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:31:52 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll add to John's list below that the Assiniboine word for 'seven' is iyu's^na. Here's Deloria's comment (1936:6): 'Iyu's^na indicates 'one odd one'. There is an Assiniboine stickgame, called Iyu^na, in which seven sticks are used as counters; and the odd one is the determinant of the game's outcome." I've never had that confirmed by any of my consultants, and I'm not sure whether Deloria intends this as an explanation of the origin of their word for 'seven', or as an example of its application. The word does not seem to be related to Lak. iyu's^la/Dak. iyu's^da 'scissors'. The Asb word for 'scissors' is iNca's^na or mas?iN'yukse. The numbers 1-10 are otherwise as in Lakhota. Linda Quoting Koontz John E : > The forms from my earlier posting, perhaps open to some corrections, are > repeated below: > > Tu Bi Of > 'two' noNoN'paa noN'pa nuN'pha > 'three' laa'ni(N) da'ni(N) ta'ni(N) > 'seven' saakoo'miNiN noN'pahudi fa'kumi(N) > 'eight' palaa'ni(N) dan'hudi' pa'tani(N) > > Te OP IO Wi > 'two' nuN'pa naNba' nuN(uN)'we nuNuN'p > 'three' ya'mni(N) dha'bdhiN da(a)'i daani' > 'seven' s^ako'wiN ppe'dhaNba sa(a)'hmaN s^aagoo'wiN > 'eight' s^aglo'gha ppe'dhabdhiN greeraa'briN harumaN'k > > Things in Mandan and Crow-Hidatsa, as I recall it, are quite different. > > The reconstructions supported by these forms are: > > 'two' *nuNuN'pa > 'three' *raa'priN > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > 'eight' ??? > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 15:33:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:33:18 -0600 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233AA4@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I thought I'd warn the list of a potential problem with Siouan list posts. Bob Rankin indicates that the KU mailer's artificial meat filter gave my post on medial pr in Proto-Siouan (and Chiwere) eight stars. I suppose it might have been the asterisk in the subject line, which looked to the filter like an attempt to break up a recognizable word, on the order of somedrugwordpart1-asterisk-somedrugwordpart2. That's dumb of the filter. The only reasonable way to deal with the interruption strategy for sneaking in artificial meat is to compress all the non-letters out of the text and look for artificial meat-matching matching strings in the compressed text. However, I think all the filters are dumb this way. They weren't devised by people used to processing Siouan data ... Another possible problem might be having over a certain percentage of lines with gibberish like Siouan words written in NetSiouan (or anything else). Anyway, you may wish to examine your artificial meat letters carefully. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 15:51:06 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:51:06 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <1083771112.409908e82f3ed@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > I'll add to John's list below that the Assiniboine word for 'seven' is > iyu's^na. Here's Deloria's comment (1936:6): 'Iyu's^na indicates 'one > odd one'. There is an Assiniboine stickgame, called Iyu^na, in which > seven sticks are used as counters; and the odd one is the determinant of > the game's outcome." I wonder if iyus^na might not be a word for a game (shinny?) stick, i.e., 'with which to make it (specific, i.e., the ball) slide'? I assume a general purpose slider, 'it slides things' would be wi'yus^na. From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 5 16:35:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:35:06 -0500 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat Message-ID: I'm afraid it just did the same to Linda's posting as well, although she only rated 6 stars (a little oxycontin, viagra or porn would get a few more). I seem to be the only one with this problem. KU seems to have a very aggressive filtering system. If I continue to be the only one with the problem, I'll just take it in stride and look over my alleged "spam" carefully instead of deleting it wholesale. Don't change a lot of things just for my sake. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:33 AM To: Siouan List Subject: RE: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat I thought I'd warn the list of a potential problem with Siouan list posts. Bob Rankin indicates that the KU mailer's artificial meat filter gave my post on medial pr in Proto-Siouan (and Chiwere) eight stars. I suppose it might have been the asterisk in the subject line, which looked to the filter like an attempt to break up a recognizable word, on the order of somedrugwordpart1-asterisk-somedrugwordpart2. That's dumb of the filter. The only reasonable way to deal with the interruption strategy for sneaking in artificial meat is to compress all the non-letters out of the text and look for artificial meat-matching matching strings in the compressed text. However, I think all the filters are dumb this way. They weren't devised by people used to processing Siouan data ... Another possible problem might be having over a certain percentage of lines with gibberish like Siouan words written in NetSiouan (or anything else). Anyway, you may wish to examine your artificial meat letters carefully. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 17:36:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:36:59 -0600 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233AA6@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: It looks like it's probably NetSiouan that's causing the problem. Punctuation embedded in the middle of words. From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed May 5 18:40:26 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:40:26 EDT Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: In a message dated 5/4/2004 10:49:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: > Things in Mandan and Crow-Hidatsa, as I recall it, are quite different. > > The reconstructions supported by these forms are: > > 'two' *nuNuN'pa > 'three' *raa'priN > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > 'eight' ??? > > The Crow forms are: sa'hpua 'seven' du'upahpi 'eight' (du'upa 'two') hawa'tahpi 'nine' (hawa'ta 'one' I would suggest that the 'seven' form may be (at least partially) cognate. Crow does not allow kp clusters morpheme-internally, so kp > hp. Then, long vowels are shortened before h (sa'ah > sa'h). The forms for 'eight' and 'nine' are transparent: 'two less than (ten)', one less than (ten)'. Related form: alaxpi' 'leftovers, remainder' Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 5 19:43:01 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:43:01 -0500 Subject: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat Message-ID: Maybe so. I wonder what our foreign students do, getting email in all sorts of foreign alphabets, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:36 PM Subject: RE: Medial reconstructed pr as artificial meat > It looks like it's probably NetSiouan that's causing the problem. > Punctuation embedded in the middle of words. > > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed May 5 20:47:07 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:47:07 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <1083771112.409908e82f3ed@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Members: The tern iyu'tan is used in the Dakota Moccasin Game when the loosing team has only 4 counting sticks left. Perhaps iyu^na is related. From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed May 5 21:12:16 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:12:16 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <1083771112.409908e82f3ed@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Fr Valentin Vegreville gives the form caGuweG for "seven". (His head entry is Sept, ou sept fois) (G = g with a superscript dot, which I take to be a velar fricative) He compiled his 'Lexique' , seemingly, in 1876-77 when he was at the Lac-Ste-Anne parish in Alberta. The form is presumably Stoney, though he himself uses the term Assiniboine. "Six ou six fois" is caGpeG. His , by the way, = s^. Mary At 10:31 AM 5/5/2004 -0500, you wrote: >I'll add to John's list below that the Assiniboine word for 'seven' is >iyu's^na. > Here's Deloria's comment (1936:6): 'Iyu's^na indicates 'one odd one'. > There is >an Assiniboine stickgame, called Iyu^na, in which seven sticks are used as >counters; and the odd one is the determinant of the game's outcome." > >I've never had that confirmed by any of my consultants, and I'm not sure >whether >Deloria intends this as an explanation of the origin of their word for >'seven', >or as an example of its application. The word does not seem to be related to >Lak. iyu's^la/Dak. iyu's^da 'scissors'. The Asb word for 'scissors' is >iNca's^na >or mas?iN'yukse. > >The numbers 1-10 are otherwise as in Lakhota. > >Linda From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 5 22:11:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:11:01 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > The Crow forms are: > sa'hpua 'seven' > > I would suggest that the 'seven' form may be (at least partially) cognate. > Crow does not allow kp clusters morpheme-internally, so kp > hp. Then, long > vowels are shortened before h (sa'ah > sa'h). Yes, I think that's right. Bob's covered this territory before, of course, but I was misremembering when I said I thought there was nothing similar in this range in CH and Mandan. The Crow 'seven' form is especially similar to the PS form IO suggests, *s^aakwaN. I seem to recall that final ua and ia suggest final h, i.e., ...ua < ...uh-a and ...ia < ...ih-a or something like that? From rankin at ku.edu Thu May 6 01:48:19 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 20:48:19 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: Apart from the fact that, for me, appeal to such hypothetical evidence just isn't comparative linguistics, I think I'd expect any earlier Ioway form to match the present-day Winnebago form for the same numeral, especially if the WI form were cognate with other MVS forms. If it too seems to be innovated, then we're simply without evidence for the earlier Chiwere word. I'm certainly at a loss to explain how a transparent hypothetical older form **phe:-ra:niN would be replaced by an equally or not-quite-as-transparent borrowed replacement kre:-ra:briN. I assume the Osages (and Kaws) borrowed a Wichita word for 'eight' precisely because it resembled the Siouan term for 'four' with a prefix they could folk-etymologize. But that argument doesn't work for replacing our hypothetical **phe:ra:niN. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:47 PM Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) > On Sun, 2 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > Chiwere (Ioway), on the other hand, lacks not only the putative > > source-word for 'eight'; it also lacks any trace of the companion term > > for 'seven'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 6 06:19:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:19:27 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <00bc01c4330c$8ec70bd0$2bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Apart from the fact that, for me, appeal to such hypothetical evidence > just isn't comparative linguistics, ... I think you're right there. It's not comparative linguistics, as there's nothing to compare. I do think it's a sort of second level deductive process that might qualify as historical, if not comparative, linguistics. It is, of course, informed by comparative linguistics. None of this would have occurred to me if I hadn't been bothered by -raabriN in Chiwere 'eight'. Things would remain there, of course, if it weren't for the IO form providing a possible glimpse of what might have been. I am, if not comparing, at least correlating the MI 'eight' form and the deduced gap atr "eight" in the IO numeral set. In a related sense you are comparing the MI 'eight' form with the Tutelo 'eight' form, though with the considerable advantage an two concrete forms. Tutelo p(h)alaaniN is certainly a reasonably good fit for MI paraare ~ palaani and the 'six' forms David brought up are suggestively similar, too, but a certain amount of geographical hypothesizing is necessary to bring Tutelo and MI into conjunction in an appropriate time frame, even though they're not so astoundingly far apart that we start wondering about coincidence. Tutelo 'eight' is the best surviving fit for MI 'eight', and it's clear that MI 'eight' is of Siouan origin, but it seems a bit of a leap to assume that because Tutelo is the best fit and a reasonable fit it is "the fit." The Tutelo form looks good, but was Tutelo in the right place at the right time? Actually, another Southeastern language would probably do as well as far as the form of 'eight', and perhaps with less strain. The combined evidence of Tutelo and Ofo suggest that Biloxi's pattern of 'eight' is the divergent, innovated form, and that if there were other Southeastern languages now extinct, they would have had an 'eight' consistent with Tutelo and/or Ofo. If Tutelo was located in West Virginia about the time of contact it could have been a Siouan language located there because at some point a largish population of Pre-Tutelo speakers moved there from elsewhere, but it is at least as likely that it reprented a local variety of a family with a more or less contiguous distribution from the Trans-Mississippi to West Virginia. If Algonquian expanded into the middle of this area then wherever MI came into existence in this process it might have been in the presence of a Southeastern Siouan substratum and it would be very likely that any Southeastern language would have had a a Tutelo and/or Ofo-like form of 'eight'. What I did instead of taking this route was to notice that Mississippi Valley languages also have, in the case of Dhegiha, 'eight' forms not unlike the Southeastern 'eight' forms, and that, unlike MI-Tutelo contact, which rests entirely on 'eight' and a very general proximity, there is considerable historical evidence of direct contact and even merger of MI and MV groups. So I asked myself what it would take to get the 'eight' form from MV insteadof SE and came up with the previously observed problem of the IO 'eight' form's shape, plus the observable fact that IO and Winnebago have forms of 'three' that are pretty good matches for the 'three' part of the MI 'eight' term, this form of 'three' being more or less precisely the form of 'three' so strangely missing in that IO 'eight' form. The lingistic logic is admitedly much more complex than the simple similarity of the Tutelo attested form, but I think that the geography and history of the MV-source hypothesis are much simpler, to the point of being essentially a matter of record. > I'm certainly at a loss to explain how a transparent hypothetical older > form **phe:-ra:niN would be replaced by an equally or > not-quite-as-transparent borrowed replacement kre:-ra:briN. This is one of the mysteries of historical linguistics. Yet we know that Siouan (and Algonquian) languages repeatedly replaced perfectly good, and in some cases, perfectly transparent numerals with others, either borrowed or locally produced. While I would certainly like to know why this happened in every case (and we have some general ideas, certainly) to some extent it's enough to know that the pattern is attested to occur. So, one might hand the question off by saying that the reasonswere not unlike those which explain why MI took up a Siouan 'eight' form. My guess would be, in both cases, that a more or less bilingual or multi-lingual population ended up sorting several numeral systems into one of mixed origin. In fact, I think that the nature of the Siouan numerals suggests that multiple systems within one language were the norm in the past. > But that argument doesn't work for replacing our hypothetical > **phe:ra:niN. In the particular case of replacing one transparent formulation with another the very transparency is probably a factor. If 'eight' is clearly 'three more' then any formulation for 'three more' is equivalent, and if I like the sound of 'thereto three' better and others follow me, the formula has changed, or, at least, an additional formula has come into being. In the hypothetical IO case there was a population in which a *phe or *pha series and a *gree series of formulations coexisted, complicated by some speakers using *raabriN for 'three' and others using *daa'niN, presumably as parts of coherent series of lower-digit numerals with different MV dialect origins. Other forms may have existed as well, some less transparent, just as hki'etopa and hpedhabriN coexist(ed) in Osage, but without any conception that only one numeral system was possible at a time. > I assume the Osages (and Kaws) borrowed a Wichita word for 'eight' > precisely because it resembled the Siouan term for 'four' with a prefix > they could folk-etymologize. I'd forgotten this aspect of the Osage form! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 6 06:32:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:32:02 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > The Crow forms are: > sa'hpua 'seven' > > Bob's covered this territory before, of course, but I was misremembering > when I said I thought there was nothing similar in this range in CH and > Mandan. It was the Mandan forms I had glanced at. But looking at these tonight I remembered that kuu'pa 'seven' is perhaps comparable to *s^aako(o)wiN or *S^aakwaN ~ *s^aakpaN. It's just missing the initial s^aa. I think that was a point made by Rankin and Zeyrek (which is buried somewhere in my file boxes). Why I can remember this and not the Wichita thing for Osage 'eight' I don't know. I don't like the hypothesis that comes to me, which is that my mind is no longer remembering new things. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu May 6 19:54:12 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:54:12 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, I have only been following this discussion a little bit, since it's final exam time. This mentioned Wichita, however, and I remember that there was some theory about one of the Dhegia languages borrowing Wichita, so here's the Wichita data, if it's worth anything: The numbers 6,7,8 are built on 1,2,3 with a prefix kiyah- which doesn't seem to mean anything recoverable now (a homonym meaning 'who?, someone' is an unlikely source). (* is high pitch on preceding vowel) six: ki*yehess ('one' is chi7ass; the 7ass is the numeral) seven kiya*hwic ('two' is wic) eight kiya*tawha ('three' is tawha, final vowel voiceless) 'nine' is 'one is missing' and ten is long but unanalyzeable. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 6 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Wed, 5 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > > > 'seven' *s^aako'wiN > > The Crow forms are: > > sa'hpua 'seven' > > > > Bob's covered this territory before, of course, but I was misremembering > > when I said I thought there was nothing similar in this range in CH and > > Mandan. > > It was the Mandan forms I had glanced at. But looking at these tonight I > remembered that kuu'pa 'seven' is perhaps comparable to *s^aako(o)wiN or > *S^aakwaN ~ *s^aakpaN. It's just missing the initial s^aa. I think that > was a point made by Rankin and Zeyrek (which is buried somewhere in my > file boxes). Why I can remember this and not the Wichita thing for Osage > 'eight' I don't know. I don't like the hypothesis that comes to me, which > is that my mind is no longer remembering new things. > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 6 20:18:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:18:53 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 May 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > John, I have only been following this discussion a little bit, since > it's final exam time. This mentioned Wichita, however, and I remember > that there was some theory about one of the Dhegiha languages borrowing > Wichita [eight], so here's the Wichita data, if it's worth anything: > The numbers 6,7,8 are built on 1,2,3 with a prefix kiyah- which > doesn't seem to mean anything recoverable now (a homonym meaning 'who?, > someone' is an unlikely source). (* is high pitch on preceding vowel) > six: ki*yehess ('one' is chi7ass; the 7ass is the numeral) > seven: kiya*hwic ('two' is wic) > eight kiya*tawha ('three' is tawha, final vowel voiceless) > 'nine' is 'one is missing' and ten is long but unanalyzeable. Bob's comparing Osage hki'etopa to the Wichita 'eight' form. Note that topa is the Osage 'four' term. Wichita tawha 'three' is the Wichita version of the Caddoan 'three' form. 'Three' is one of Wally's Macro-Siouan sets, as I recall it, and would be cognate with PS *raa'priN (or, equivalently, *raa'wriN). I don't recall the Proto-Caddoan version of the form. If Osage does borrow 'eight' from Wichita, it's a second or third case of borrowed 'eight' terms in the general Midwestern area - Wichita > Osage, Tutelo (or something Siouan) > Miami-Illinois, and (something Siouan) > Ioway-Otoe. It's almost as if 'eight' were tabooed in some way. As Bob points out in regard to the possibility of the IO form being borrowed, the existing terms, attested or hypothetical by analogy with respect to transparent formations for adjacent numerals or related languages are not problematic in any morphological way. On the other hand 'higher' digits (six to nine) seem particularly unstable and/or transparently formed in Siouan languages. The 'nine' term is definitely widely borrowed regionally, too. Maybe this is just a culture area in which innovation and/or multiple sets of forms were common in this area in the pre-contact period. After contact base-ten numeration would tend to be common as a result of European commercial influence. It's interesting that along with Osage {hki'e}topa and the Wichita kiyah- based higher digits we also have IO {gree}raapriN and PS *{kye}praN (or *{kyee}wraN) 'ten'. This almost looks like an areal "higher digit" formant. I also wonder about the *s^aak- element that is so common in Siouan higher digits. Could it be *s^aak < **kyaak? From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu May 6 23:19:51 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:19:51 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I also wonder about the *s^aak- element that is so common in Siouan higher > digits. Could it be *s^aak < **kyaak? I've wondered about that too. It seems that most of the "higher digit" formants in series that count up must effectively mean 'five+', however they may actually be derived. When I first started looking at Siouan languages around 1990, I tried comparing vocabulary lists from six languages for which I was then able to get some material: Omaha, Osage, Lakhota, IO, Biloxi and Hidatsa. I found that the first four were fairly close, with Biloxi more distant and Hidatsa hardly recognizable as being related. One thing that struck me at the time was that the word for 'hand' had been replaced in the (MVS) group: in Hidatsa and Biloxi, and presumably PS, 'hand' had been something like *s^aki or *s^ake. In MVS, however, 'hand' was *naNpe, while the *s^aki/*s^ake term had moved on to mean 'nail', 'claw', 'hoof' or 'talon'. Am I remembering this right? Anyway, if 'hand' was originally *s^aki/*s^ake, might that not be the derivation of the *s^aak- we find in some of the higher order numbers? It would be an obvious choice for the 'five+' requirement. The problem is that this is also the only "higher digit" formant that pairs with things that don't look anything like Siouan 'one', 'two' or 'three'. We would seem to need a "lower digit" counting system something like: 1 = *pe 2 = *owiN/*owaN 3 = *rog^aN/*yog^aN I don't suppose anybody knows of any numerical system comparable to that, either inside or outside of Siouan? Given how widespread the *s^aak- terms are, the original formation of these should be pretty old. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 7 00:57:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 19:57:24 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8. Message-ID: > > I also wonder about the *s^aak- element that is so common in Siouan > higher digits. Could it be *s^aak < **kyaak? Just *$aake 'hand' is good and sufficient. And the cognate sets show this WAS the original 'hand' term. NaNpe is just the MVS replacement. I have a paper on these higher numerals from some years back too. Actually most of the quinary counting systems in eastern north america are only partially quinary. 7 and 8 are the most common, 6, 7, and 8 are next. "Nine" seldom participates and is often "one missing". My paper hypothesized that the system in MVS makes the best sense when understood as part of the Plains Sign Language hand signals for the numbers. It too was pre-computer so I'll have to retype it someday. The Kaw for 8 is kkiyadoba or kkiadoba. I suspect this is from that Wichita form. Bob > > I've wondered about that too. It seems that most of the > "higher digit" formants in series that count up must > effectively mean 'five+', however they may actually be > derived. > > When I first started looking at Siouan languages around > 1990, I tried comparing vocabulary lists from six languages > for which I was then able to get some material: Omaha, Osage, > Lakhota, IO, Biloxi and Hidatsa. I found that the first four > were fairly close, with Biloxi more distant and Hidatsa > hardly recognizable as being related. One thing that struck > me at the time was that the word for 'hand' had been replaced > in the (MVS) group: in Hidatsa and Biloxi, and presumably PS, > 'hand' had been something like *s^aki or *s^ake. In MVS, > however, 'hand' was *naNpe, while the *s^aki/*s^ake term > had moved on to mean 'nail', 'claw', 'hoof' or 'talon'. > Am I remembering this right? > > Anyway, if 'hand' was originally *s^aki/*s^ake, might that > not be the derivation of the *s^aak- we find in some of the > higher order numbers? It would be an obvious choice for > the 'five+' requirement. The problem is that this is > also the only "higher digit" formant that pairs with things > that don't look anything like Siouan 'one', 'two' or 'three'. > We would seem to need a "lower digit" counting system > something like: > > 1 = *pe > 2 = *owiN/*owaN > 3 = *rog^aN/*yog^aN > > I don't suppose anybody knows of any numerical system > comparable to that, either inside or outside of Siouan? > Given how widespread the *s^aak- terms are, the original > formation of these should be pretty old. > > Rory > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 05:45:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 23:45:38 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > One thing that struck me at the time was that the word for 'hand' had > been replaced in the (MVS) group: in Hidatsa and Biloxi, and presumably > PS, 'hand' had been something like *s^aki or *s^ake. In MVS, however, > 'hand' was *naNpe, while the *s^aki/*s^ake term had moved on to mean > 'nail', 'claw', 'hoof' or 'talon'. Am I remembering this right? Right, as, of course, Bob has already confirmed. (And I think I heard once that somebody had observed from a general study that terms for parts of the limbs tended to move outward along the limb, or perhaps it was the reverse.) I had, of course, been thinking something along these lines, though in my case from having read Bob's paper at some point (or at least having seen the handout), but I couldn't help noticing the other similarity, too. I suspect it's just a coincidence. I notice that the kiyah- formant is restricted to Wichita, even, within Caddoan, at least as far as I can make out at Mark Rosenfelder's numeral collection site (http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml). For that matter, though IO gree- in gree'raabriN 'eight' could be from either *kree- or *kyee-, I think the similarity of the initial syllable there to PMV *kyee'praN 'ten' is probably also coincidental, because a positional analysis involving *the (*k + the > *kre, and Bob suggests *the < *re-he). Only Dakotan preserves *ky distinct from *kr, incidentally. > Anyway, if 'hand' was originally *s^aki/*s^ake, might that not be the > derivation of the *s^aak- we find in some of the higher order numbers? > It would be an obvious choice for the 'five+' requirement. Obviously Bob agrees, and I'll chime in and agree with both of you. I suspect Wolff and Matthews might even have noticed this, too, though I don't recall a reference, off hand. > The problem is that this is also the only "higher digit" formant that > pairs with things that don't look anything like Siouan 'one', 'two' or > 'three'. We would seem to need a "lower digit" counting system something > like: > > 1 = *pe > 2 = *owiN/*owaN > 3 = *rog^aN/*yog^aN > I don't suppose anybody knows of any numerical system comparable to > that, either inside or outside of Siouan? Given how widespread the > *s^aak- terms are, the original formation of these should be pretty old. It would definitely be interesting to look for a numeral series like this, and I did briefly look for it at Rosenfelder's site, without any real luck, but no persistence either. If we look within Siouan, and if we bear in mind that the numerals often show little contrast between *Cp and *Cw, even though the phonology isn't always regular, and that, in fact, we don't reconstruct *Cw clusters except in a few unusual cases, it's possible that *s^aakpe might be *s^aak-we, and that the *we might be essentially wiN or waN 'one'. Then *owiN could be "(one more) on one." However, beyond that my imagination fails me. I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun May 9 11:58:01 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 06:58:01 -0500 Subject: Hand gestures: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this > direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not > *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made > with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand > counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 > with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle > 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! > On the subject of hand gestures in counting, here's a fairly detailed description from Denig's "The Assiniboine", written around 1854 at Ft. Union: "In counting with the hand, an Indian invariably begins with the little finger of the left, shutting it down forcibly with the thumb of the right; when the five fingers are thus shut he commences on the thumb of the right, shutting it with the left fist. When wishing to telegraph by signs a certain number less than 10 he holds up that number of fingers, beginning with the little finger of the left hand and keeping the others shut. Should the number be 7, then all the fingers of the left and thumb and finger of the right would be extended, holding up his hands, the rest of the fingers closed. Tens are counted by shutting and opening both hands; thus, 100 would be indicated by shutting and opening both hands 10 times in succession. The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand (the odd number)." Denig, Edwin Thompson (edited by JNB Hewitt with a new introduction by David R., Miller). Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, 2000:26. (p.420 in Hewitt's 46th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1928-1929) From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 9 14:27:28 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 09:27:28 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: > . . . possible that *s^aakpe might be *s^aak-we, and that the *we might be > essentially wiN or waN 'one'. I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this > direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not > *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made > with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand > counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 > with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle > 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! As I recall, my essential point was that, if you use the Plains Sign Language system for the numerals, then the number 6 is (re)interpretable as simply the second fist (with a nearly invisible thumb actually counting for the numeral). Then 7 extends one VISIBLE finger, giving the morpheme /-wiN/ 'one'. And so forth. The problem was figuring out what kind of a counting system would incorporate 'one' in 'seven' instead of 'six', and the hand signs accomplished that. The analysis may be a bit strained, but I still find it attractive. It's clear they were using the hand signs since 'nine' is something like /naNpciyuNka/ 'one in the palm' [the little finger] if memory serves. 'Ten', then, involves all the fingers extended on both hands. 'Eight' is odd man out. What is the meaning of -loghaN/-yoghaN of /$aglogaN/?? If I ever knew, I've forgotten. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 9 14:34:06 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 09:34:06 -0500 Subject: Hand signs for numerals in PSL. Message-ID: Right! This very nice description kindly sent by Linda is exactly the system protrayed in the publication with drawings that I used in my talk. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: > On the subject of hand gestures in counting, here's a fairly detailed > description from Denig's "The Assiniboine", written around 1854 at Ft. Union: > > "In counting with the hand, an Indian invariably begins with the little finger > of the left, shutting it down forcibly with the thumb of the right; when the > five fingers are thus shut he commences on the thumb of the right, shutting it > with the left fist. When wishing to telegraph by signs a certain number less > than 10 he holds up that number of fingers, beginning with the little finger of > the left hand and keeping the others shut. Should the number be 7, then all the > fingers of the left and thumb and finger of the right would be extended, holding > up his hands, the rest of the fingers closed. Tens are counted by shutting and > opening both hands; thus, 100 would be indicated by shutting and opening both > hands 10 times in succession. The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand > (the odd number)." > > > Denig, Edwin Thompson (edited by JNB Hewitt with a new introduction by David R., > Miller). Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, 2000:26. (p.420 in Hewitt's > 46th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the > Smithsonian Institution 1928-1929) > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 18:15:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:15:26 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <009801c435d1$d49ccf60$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > As I recall, my essential point was that, if you use the Plains Sign > Language system for the numerals, then the number 6 is (re)interpretable > as simply the second fist (with a nearly invisible thumb actually > counting for the numeral). Then 7 extends one VISIBLE finger, giving the > morpheme /-wiN/ 'one'. And so forth. The problem was figuring out what > kind of a counting system would incorporate 'one' in 'seven' instead of > 'six', and the hand signs accomplished that. Bob? I don't remember - were you placing a particular analysis on *pe in 'six'? In Denig's description that Linda cites, fingers are closed down in counting, rather that opened out. Denig: > In counting with the hand, an Indian invariably begins with the little > finger of the left, shutting it down forcibly with the thumb of the > right; when the five fingers are thus shut he commences on the thumb of > the right, shutting it with the left fist. So, 'six' involves the closed left fist holding down the right thumb. The closest I can get to a morpheme *pe that would describe this is the fist syllable of *pe'thaN 'to fold' (Dakotan *pehaN, OP bethaN, etc.), or maybe *pe'priN 'to twist' (Da pemni(N)', OP be'bdhiN, etc.), One would have to assume some sort of truncation - or, of course, another morpheme entirely! But, when the right index finger is closed down on the right thumb and the left fist placed on it you do have a locative + 'one' situation, htough I'd have expected the a-locative rather than the o-locative. I guess I should think of it as into the palm, not onto the thumb. > The analysis may be a bit strained, but I still find it attractive. It is a bit unexpected. I commented much earlier in this thread that it was surprising that 'seven' involved 'one', recapituating your earlier observation though not your insight. I think that the form speaks for itself, however, so that the problem is one of discovering, if possible, how 'one' could be intended, and not of justifying to ourselves that it is actually 'one'. It's obvious that 'one' isn't the X in 5 + X = 7. The *s^aak-based higher digits don't use that approach, whereas the *hpe- and *hpa-based higher digits do. One thing I notice about the counting scheme is that it starts with the little finger on the first hand, and the thumb on the second, so that, in effect, one could use a single hand - thumb out is 'four', but little finger ot is 'nine', and so on. The other hand acts to hold down the little finger for 'one', since little finger don't move well independently for most of us. This scheme can also be thought us as proceding iconically across the finger of the hands held up before one. Clark's The Indian Sign Language describes counting by extending or unfolding fingers, starting with the closed right hand, but, again, beginning with the little finger and continuing on the left hand with the thumb. By contrast, when I count with my fingers - and I assume I do this in the canonical way for my own culture, though perhaps I aven't been paying attention, as usual! - I start with my closed right fist and extend successive fingers starting with the index finger, using the thumb to hold down the little finger until it is needed for 'four', and adding the thumb to make five. Then I start over again in the same order on the left hand, perhaps holding up the open right hand to remind people that I've already reached five. I might tap each finger as it extends using the index finger of the other hand. Alternatively, I can start extending fingers with the thumb, holding the little finger in with the base of the thumb, and almost certainly tapping the extended fingers in this case. This approach avoids using the other hand to hold in the little finger, but it doesn't distinguish 1-5 from 6-10 by using different hand configurations. My understanding is that systems of finger counting differ culturally, though the same themes, obviously, tend to repeat themselves from the antomical limitations of the situation. > It's clear they were using the hand signs since 'nine' is something like > /naNpciyuNka/ 'one in the palm' [the little finger] if memory serves. > 'Ten', then, involves all the fingers extended on both hands. Denig describes folding in fingers in counting, but also extending them in showing numbers. Denig, again, from Linda: > When wishing to telegraph by signs a certain number less than 10 he > holds up that number of fingers, beginning with the little finger of the > left hand and keeping the others shut. Should the number be 7, then all > the fingers of the left and thumb and finger of the right would be > extended, ... I assume understands the Dakotan 'nine' construction is na(N)p- 'hand' plus c^iNyuNka, where the latter is something like (i)c^iyuNka < *i-ki-yuNka meaning something like 'it (one's own) sitting/lying with respect to it'. I have to assume the *i- to get c^i from *ki. Alternatively, it might be *raNraNpyiruNka (putting it in PMV terms) or *na(N)p-c^hiyuNka, with c^(h) < *y, but in that case I don't understand the construction. > 'Eight' is odd man out. What is the meaning of -loghaN/-yoghaN of > /$aglogaN/?? If I ever knew, I've forgotten. I can't find an etymology in terms of something like PMV *roghaN (with the forms Bob cites in Dakotan) either. The *ro might be 'flesh', but that doesn't seem to lead anywhere. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 18:19:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:19:20 -0600 Subject: Hand gestures: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 In-Reply-To: <1084103881.409e1cc99c113@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 May 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > Per Denig, "The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand (the odd > number)." How does the latter related to iyu's^na? From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 9 20:47:20 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:47:20 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: > Bob? I don't remember - were you placing a particular analysis on *pe in > 'six'? In Denig's description that Linda cites, fingers are closed down in > counting, rather that opened out. Start with a fist in front of you, palm down, parallel to the ground. Extend the little finger of this first hand for 'one'. Keep going thru the thumb = 'five'. Now, your second fist is extended beside the first (which by now has all 5 fingers extended. The extended thumb on the second fist makes it 'six', but of course the entire fist can easily be reinterpreted as the 'six' sign, since the thumb is not prominent. The index finger of the second hand (next to the thumb) is then 'seven', but it looks to the hearer as if only one finger is extended -- thus the seven term in the spoken language. Keep extending until only the last "pinkie" is left in the palm -- that's 'nine'. All fingers on both hands extended is 'ten'. That's what the pictures tell me. I think my source was Mallory or Clarke, nor can I remember who plagiarized from whom, although it's a matter of record.. > The closest I can get to a morpheme *pe that would describe this is the > fist syllable of *pe'thaN 'to fold' (Dakotan *pehaN, OP bethaN, etc.), or > maybe *pe'priN 'to twist' (Da pemni(N)', OP be'bdhiN, etc.),... > One thing I notice about the counting scheme is that it starts with the > little finger on the first hand, and the thumb on the second, Yep, you just go right across from one side to the other. The -pe of $akpe is just as mysterious as the *hpe- of the seven/eight numerals in Dhegiha. They may even be the same morpheme. I have no answer there. Bob From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun May 9 20:45:48 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:45:48 -0500 Subject: Hand gestures: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > On Sun, 9 May 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > > Per Denig, "The number 7 has two names, shakkowee and enshand (the odd > > number)." > > How does the latter related to iyu's^na? > > > I was sort of hoping someone would have an idea on that. Denig's orthography is fairly inconsistent - frequently I can make out what he's writing because I already know the word. 'e' to him is 'i' to us, and 'a' is usually the typical 'a' in 'father', so you could almost make that case that he's attempting 'iyus^na', but where is the -yu- ? Denig knew the Assiniboine language, so it's not likely that he didn't hear the -yu-. Yet the meaning he assigns it correlates well with Deloria's explanation about a game of seven sticks in which the odd one determined the outcome. (Whether that's shinny or not, I don't know - I probably should ask Ray next time I see him.) Anyway, I figured "enshand" was in the ballpark, and since I have other things on my mind, I didn't explore it any further. Linda From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 9 23:03:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 17:03:31 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <00e801c43606$e5b8be50$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > The -pe of $akpe is just as mysterious as the *hpe- of the seven/eight numerals > in Dhegiha. They may even be the same morpheme. I have no answer there. I was wondering about that, but bothered by *hpe vs. *-pe. Now it occurs to me that one possible explanation of *hpe is *kpe, perhaps from *s^aakpe, cf. Mandan ku'pa 'seven' ?< PreMA *saakupa, cf. PS *s^aakowiN. In this case one would have to assume that the pattern in Dhegiha was modified along arithmetical lines: PMV PDh 1 *wiN' *wiN 2 *nuNuN'pa *ruNuN'pa 3 *raa'priN *raa'priN 4 *too'pa *too'pa 5 *saa'ptaN *saa'ptaN 6 *s^aa'k=pe *s^aa'kpe(wiN) 7 *s^aa'k=owiN *kpe'ruNuNpa 8 *s^aa'k=??? *kpe'raapriN 9 ??? *s^aNaN'kka 10 *kyee'rpaN *kyee'praN From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 03:46:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:46:16 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040505150424.017b0568@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > Fr Valentin Vegreville gives the form caGuweG for "seven". (His head > entry is Sept, ou sept fois) (G = g with a superscript dot, which I take > to be a velar fricative) He compiled his 'Lexique' , seemingly, in > 1876-77 when he was at the Lac-Ste-Anne parish in Alberta. The form is > presumably Stoney, though he himself uses the term Assiniboine. "Six ou > six fois" is caGpeG. His , by the way, = s^. I meant to ask about the final -G in these numerals. What does it represent? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 04:19:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 22:19:24 -0600 Subject: Procedural Comments Message-ID: If you are sending a response to the list, it is not necessary to also send it to the author of the posting you are responding to. They will receive a copy automatically, because they are subscribed to the list. You might want to cc any off-list parties who have been included in an exchange, especally if you included them yourself. My impression is that most people who regularly respond both to the list and to the sender of a posting on the list are being ambushed by a feature of their mailer, but I thought I'd mention it in passing. By intention the list is set up so that responses will go to the list if you do the default pattern of reply. You should have to take special steps to send an off-list or side response only to the poster. However, some mailer utilities are set up to circumvent this scheme. They either redirect the response to the poster, rather than the list, or they manage to arrange the headers of constributions so that in spite of ListProc's best efforts any response to that letter will go back to the original poster and not the list. It is probably possible configure most mailers not to do this, but the process may be infinitely complex. So far, the only solution to these various problems that I know of is vigilence. It never hurts to check to see who you are actually sending a letter to before you send it. I know some very sad stories about missent email. Unfortunately it's very easy to get into the habit of assuming that things are working as expected, because normally they do! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 04:24:51 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 22:24:51 -0600 Subject: Filtering to Avoid Siouan List Postings Being Identified as Artificial Meat Message-ID: The subject-line has been phrased that way to avoid over generous filters that filter on the usual word for artificial meat! We obviously can't avoid having postings classified as a.m., but it occurred to me that we could make it a bit easier to determine whether they were actually a.m. To this end I looked to see if I could insert the words [Siouan List] into the subject line. I discovered that the aging (superannuated, really) ListProc program that CU uses does not provide a feature of this. (The consortium that produced ListProc has actually formally disbanded itself.) In addition, though the comment "Siouan Linguistics List" is supposed to be included in all to-fields, and I think at one time it was, it now is not. The varying non-address text that you see there is acutally provided by whoever posted the letter. However, as far as I can tell, all arriving letters have the text siouan at lists.colorado.edu in the to-field, perhaps with additional material surrounding it. So, if you set up a filter to direct letters with this text in the to-field into a folder, specify not to do any further alternative filtering to such letters, and place this filter before any filters you have that direct letters with a.m. or equivalent into a trash folder, you should be able to guarantee that you receive letters sent to the list, as long as a.m. letters are still actually delivered to you and not deleted out of hand by the authorities. Forwarding them with an identifiying mark in the subject or the body of the message is still the usual practice. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 06:07:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:07:16 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: I laid this aside to reply to after looking into it further and, a month later, here I am getting to it. And not a minute too soon, as the non-historical, non-etymological readers are probably thinking they could do with a change, and maybe even the historians are ready for something non-numerical. Well, this is about plurals, and 'hand' and even 'claw' come into it near the end, but there are no numerals. On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > Rory said: > Thus, one leg would be /khe/, "elongate", but both legs would be /the/, > "the set". One eye would be /dhaN/, "globular", but both eyes would be > /the/. A single hand, however, is still /the/, I suppose because all > the fingers composing it are regarded as a set. I hadn't realized that legs were horizontal, which is sort of interesting in itself. Ardis responds: > Ok, I am not sure about how these were elicited but the pairs of body > parts associated with a given individual have taken the singular article > in most of the data I have seen produced naturally. > Ex. Zhibe kHe abita-a. > leg the touch-Femal command > 'Touch your leg(s).' > This is ambiguous between singular and plural. Well, I certainly agree that shifts in the inanimate articles are often used to indicate number or, rather, configurational changes that amount to number. Dorsey also regularly speaks of =the as a former of collectives. However, now that I've looked, it appears, contrary to what I might have expected, that the texts suggest that with body parts this does not normally occur. I would hesitate to suggest it never occurs, and I would also hesitate to guess what the implication would be when it did occur. I will look at '(lower) leg', 'eye' and 'hand', since Rory suggests those examples. I'll list clearly singular examples, followed by ambiguously singular or plural examples, followed by clearly plural examples. I won't always cite the context that makes the number clear. 'leg' Examples from Dorsey: 90:427.15 u'=i z^i'be=khe= dhaN he was wounded (in) the lower leg ??? 90:428.8 INs^?a'ge-wahidhe u'=i z^i'be=khe= dhaN IW they wounded (in) the lower leg ??? I think dhaN in these sentences is acting as the evidential. Wounding requires dhaN? (Side issue I will leave for now!) 90:564.10 kke'ttaNga ... z^i'be=khe=s^ti naNz^a'ge=xti maNdhiNdhiN Big Turtle the legs, too much bent he was walking about (with) 90:568.10 z^i'be sihi'= ge= di lower leg foot-bones the on on the feet of the lower (hind) legs So, 'lower leg', singular or plural, is always =khe 'the horizontal', except when =ge 'the scattered' is used. The examples are not particularly numerous, however, and one might wonder if a turtle's legs were a different case. 'eye' Examples from Dorsey: 90:24.6 Kki is^ta'=xti=dhaN u'=bi=ama and right (in) the eye he wounded him (singular) 90:248.7 ista'=dhaN uga's?iN=bi=ama his eye(s?) he peeked in (with) 90:314.12 is^ta'=dhaN udhi'bahiN= s^tes^te=waN the eye(s?) he pokes you in even if (maybe the w in waN indicates wa-aN and implies plural?) 90:145.3 is^ta'=dhaN giippi'guguda=bi= egaN her eyes she repeatedly rubbed holes in the them having As I understand this, she is rubbing her eyes in disbelief. I wrote gii- because Dorsey wrote gi+, though +-lengthening normally seems to indicate a rhetorical device. 90:171.7 (and similarly in 171.10 anbd 171.11) eda'be is^ta'=dhaN ze'=awadhe=tta=miNkhe also his eyes I will heal them 90:264.3 is^ta'=dhaN e'dhaNbe gdhiN'=bi=ama his eyes visible he sat (Big Turtle peeping out of the water) 91:21.4 is^ta'=dhaN aNdhaNdaNbe=xti his (own) eyes he has actually seen me with So 'eye' is always dhaN, singular or plural. 'hand' Examples from Dorsey 90:62.4 gaNkki naNbe'=the a'nasaNda=bi=ama and his hand it closed upon 90:470.8 naNbe'=the e'=dhaNska a hand that size 90:97.15 naNbe'=the aNwaNdhaN=ga my hand(s?) take hold of me by 90:63.2 (similarly in 63.6) naNbe'=the s^niNs^niN'de=xti gia'gha=bi=ama his hands very greasy he made them 90:96.4 naNbe'=the i'wikkaNttaN=tte ha your hands I will tie you to it by 90:235.18 naNbe'=the=s^ti his hands also 90:363.4-5 (similarly 364.11, etc.) PpaNdhiN=dhiNkhe naNbe' etta'=the maa'=sa=bi=egaN the Pawnee his hands they cut off 90:721.1 maNc^hu'-sabe, naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki grizzly-bear claws their hands some if you have 91:70.7 naNbe=the was^kaN=aNgi'kkidha=i our hands we make them active This last example involves paired hands, but of a group of individuals. Hands appear to always be =the, except for one case where disassociated, possibly never associated, paws take =ge. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 15:37:12 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:37:12 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) (correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > 90:721.1 > maNc^hu'-sabe, naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki => sage > grizzly-bear claws their hands some if you have From mary.marino at usask.ca Mon May 10 15:53:02 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:53:02 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think it represents the same sound as the medial "G" - a velar fricative, whether voiced or voiceless. Mary At 09:46 PM 5/9/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Wed, 5 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > Fr Valentin Vegreville gives the form caGuweG for "seven". (His head > > entry is Sept, ou sept fois) (G = g with a superscript dot, which I take > > to be a velar fricative) He compiled his 'Lexique' , seemingly, in > > 1876-77 when he was at the Lac-Ste-Anne parish in Alberta. The form is > > presumably Stoney, though he himself uses the term Assiniboine. "Six ou > > six fois" is caGpeG. His , by the way, = s^. > >I meant to ask about the final -G in these numerals. What does it >represent? From rankin at ku.edu Mon May 10 18:18:30 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:18:30 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) Message-ID: [RLR]: Actually, this is the best idea I've seen lately. There's your Siouan Conference paper for you. I've added my own Proto-Dhegiha reconstructions (as I understand PDh to be), but the upshot is exactly the same, of course. The source and meaning of PDh *hpee- has been bothering me for years. This makes good sense. [JEK]: > I was wondering about that, but bothered by *hpe vs. *-pe. Now it occurs to me that one possible explanation of *hpe is *kpe, perhaps from *s^aakpe, cf. Mandan ku'pa 'seven' ?< PreMA *saakupa, cf. PS *s^aakowiN. In this case one would have to assume that the pattern in Dhegiha was modified along arithmetical lines: PMV PDh PDh II (rlr) 1 *wiN' *wiN *wiN'-xti 2 *nuNuN'pa *ruNuN'pa *nooN'pa 3 *raa'priN *raa'priN *raa'briN 4 *too'pa *too'pa *too'pa 5 *saa'ptaN *saa'ptaN *saa'htaN 6 *s^aa'k=pe *s^aa'kpe(wiN) *$aa'hpe-(wiN) 7 *s^aa'k=owiN *kpe'ruNuNpa * hpee'noNpa 8 *s^aa'k=??? *kpe'raapriN * hpee'raabriN 9 ??? *s^aNaN'kka *$aaN'hka 10 *kyee'rpaN *kyee'praN *kree'braN [RLR]: With Proto-Chiwere having something closer to the PMV forms, the above paradigms would also explain why Chiwere has a /k/ in the initial syllable of /kree-raabriN/ 'eight', although it doesn't explain the /r/. I would have expected maybe **/kwe-/, instead of /kree-/. Vowel length in Dh *hpee- and Ch *kree- is also a loose end. This is a really interesting working hypothesis though. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 10 20:03:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:03:04 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510095050.017c8dd8@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > I think it represents the same sound as the medial "G" - a velar fricative, > whether voiced or voiceless. I was also wondering what final -x in Vegreville's s^axpex and s^ag.owex might represent morphologically? Is it the multiplicative? From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue May 11 15:35:02 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 8 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > I think Bob pursued the matter further, though not necessarily in this > direction. As I recall it, his hypothesis is that the forms are not > *s^aak 'hand' + numeral, but *s^aak 'hand' + description of gesture made > with hand to indicate the numeral in question. There are various hand > counting systems that involve using only one hand, and after doing 1-5 > with fingers in some way making some differentiating gestures to handle > 6-10. I wish I knew of a survey of such systems - if one exists! > >>From another language family: the Uto-Aztecan language Nahuatl has a vegisimal system, based on 20, which represents the counting of ten fingers and *ten toes*. Unfortunately, I don't know how counting is performed physically. However, the numbers go like this, in translation: one two three four it is a hand-grabbed thing aside-one aside-two aside-three aside-four it is a hand torso hand-torso one hand-torso two hand-torso three hand-torso four fifteen fifteen one fifteen two fifteen three fifteen four it is one count Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 11 16:29:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:29:55 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 May 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > From another language family: the Uto-Aztecan language Nahuatl has a > vegisimal system, based on 20, which represents the counting of ten > fingers and *ten toes*. Unfortunately, I don't know how counting is > performed physically. ... Presumably a good deal of hopping occurs during the teens. > However, the numbers go like this, in translation: > aside-one 6 > aside-two 7 > aside-three 8 > aside-four 9 This sounds like it might involve holding the counted fingers in a different zone than usual, somewhat like my original suggestion that Siouan *(h)pa- and *hpe might involve holding the hand in a different place, e.g., near the head. Or it might refer to something like counting "beside" the already counted hand. From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 19:27:44 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:27:44 -0500 Subject: conference housing update Message-ID: I've had several inquiries about housing for the Siouan and Caddoan Languages conference -- Here's a quick update and reminder. (1) Motels: Super 8 Motel (402-375-4898) has a block of rooms reserved for us. $42/single, $45 double. Mention group confirmation number G-00007-66; call by May 27 to get group rate. Located about 8 blocks from the conference site, at 610 Tomar Dr. (just off 7th Street, which is also Highway 35). There are two other motels in Wayne: K-D Inn Motel 402-375-1770 Sports Club Motel 402-375-4222 (2) Dorm: Information has changed slightly -- it turns out there is room in a newly refurbished, airconditioned dorm, so this option may actually be a pretty comfortable one, in addition to being cheap and close. It IS still a dorm, though -- showers down the hall and so on. $21.50/single, $14.25 per person/double Neihardt Hall, conveniently next door to the conference site, right on the Wayne State campus. Limited number of rooms. Please make reservations EARLY! Contact Thom Osnes, housing supervisor at 402-375-7213, or contact me and I can make a reservation for you. Catherine From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 19:52:56 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:52:56 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: John wrote: "Well, I certainly agree that shifts in the inanimate articles are often used to indicate number or, rather, configurational changes that amount to number. Dorsey also regularly speaks of =the as a former of collectives. However, now that I've looked, it appears, contrary to what I might have expected, that the texts suggest that with body parts this does not normally occur. I would hesitate to suggest it never occurs, and I would also hesitate to guess what the implication would be when it did occur. ... So, 'lower leg', singular or plural, is always =khe 'the horizontal', ... So 'eye' is always dhaN, singular or plural. ... Hands appear to always be =the, except for one case where disassociated, possibly never associated, paws take =ge." ... Hmm... Does this look like lexicalization of the article to anyone else? Maybe lexicalization isn't the right term ... I mean the tendency, which has come up occasionally before in our discussions of the articles, for certain words to always take the same article, regardless of position/configuration (including stacks etc. for plural). Perhaps the articles are in the early stages of "fossilizing" -- losing their configurational semantics and becoming something more like gender-class markers? I don't mean to suggest that this is widespread -- they clearly indicate configuration in most cases. Does anyone remember examples other than body parts? It does make a certain amount of sense for body parts to be on the cutting edge of a change like this ... On another issue... The "lower leg" seems to favor Rory's "elongate" over "horizontal" for =khe. Another example here might be "hair" which I think (remembering off the top of my head, may well be wrong) is also always =khe, and even on the windy plains, hair tends not to stand out horizontal. Catherine From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 20:17:32 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: another update on the housing update Message-ID: More dorm info. David asked if one needs to bring towels and soap ... a question it hadn't occurred to me to ask. It turns out that linens are extra -- for $7 you get a "linen set" containing sheets, pillow, blanket, hand towels, bath towel, soap, maybe shampoo (the person I talked to wasn't sure). Room prices are also slightly different from what they quoted me a few months back... Here are the correct rates: double room: $15 per person $22 per person "with linens" single room: $22.50 $29.50 "with linens" They prefer to know in advance who wants a linen set, but will have some available in case someone needs one at the last minute. If you don't request a linen set, you'll want to bring not only towels but also a sleeping bag or bedding, pillow, etc. From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue May 11 20:59:30 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:59:30 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program Message-ID: OK, here's a first draft of the Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference program, just to give you an idea how it's looking. Comments/suggestions/additions welcome. So far there are 14 papers, one "mini-presentation", and two "round tables". A couple of other people have indicated they might want to present something but haven't given me a title; I haven't put them in the list here, but there's room to add them. (And for anyone else out there who might be thinking of coming ... we could fit in a few late submissions; just drop me a note.) For the round tables what I have in mind is 2 or 3 or 4 short presentations setting out the issues, segueing into general discussion. I've put these at the end of each day so as to leave the time for discussion flexible. Each one has two "startoff presenters" listed now -- anyone else want to volunteer? And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and such when the time is closer. - - - 24th Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference Tentative Program THURSDAY, JUNE 10, evening Informal get-together at Catherine's house FRIDAY, JUNE 11 MORNING: Thaddeus C. Grimm Wichita, KS "The Glottal Stop in Siouan Languages -- A Review" John Koontz Boulder, CO "Reconstructing Some Mississippi Valley Kinterms" Corey Telfer University of Calgary The History of Lakhota a-final Roots Mary Marino University of Saskatchewan "The French-Assiniboine Lexique of Fr Valentin Vegreville, OMI" Carolyn Quintero University of Oklahoma Mini-presentation: "Guns" FRIDAY AFTERNOON: Rory Larson University of Nebraska, Lincoln "Acculturation Terms in Omaha: Forms of Derivation" Carolyn Quintero University of Oklahoma "Osage Dictionary" Mark Awakuni-Swetland University of Nebraska, Lincoln "I am Looking for the Middle Ground / T?nde ind?nbe khe ubth?xide" *overhead projector ROUNDTABLE: language teaching issues, native vs. academic expectations & concerns, language "ownership" building on Mark's presentation Mark Awakuni-Swetland (University of Nebraska) Vida Stabler (Umonhon Nation School) Dean's reception? SATURDAY, JUNE 12, MORNING Randolph Graczyk "Topics in Crow Morphology: Reduplication and Possessive Reflexive" Linda Cumberland Indiana University "Specificity and Definiteness in Assiniboine" Regina Pustet "Aspect Marking in Lakota" Bruce Ingham SOAS London "Nature and Use of the Independent Personal Pronouns in Lakota" SATURDAY AFTERNOON: Robert Rankin U. Kansas "Active/Stative in Ohio Valley Siouan" David Rood U. Colorado "Wichita Word Formation" John Boyle University of Chicago "A Comparative look at aru-/ala- and aku-/ak- in Missouri Valley Siouan" ROUNDTABLE: Clause Structure in Siouan Catherine Rudin (Wayne State College) John Boyle (University of Chicago) Group dinner ... The Uptown? SUNDAY MORNING ? business meeting? Over breakfast at the coffeehouse? More sessions? (If more papers come in...) We could have the second roundtable Sunday morning. Or just quit and let those driving head for home... and those flying out later visit the local attractions :) In any case, the conference will end by noon Sunday at the latest. From mary.marino at usask.ca Wed May 12 05:09:47 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 23:09:47 -0600 Subject: Companion Terms for 7 and 8 (Re: 'eight' some more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What you transcribe here as /x/ is in V's transcription /g/ with a superscript dot. It also occurs in other places: notably after "daNyaN". I don't know exactly what it is. I have been working on the lexicon for about 1 week. Save further questions until next month; I will bring the 2 manuscripts to the Siouan Conference. Mary At 02:03 PM 5/10/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 10 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > I think it represents the same sound as the medial "G" - a velar fricative, > > whether voiced or voiceless. > >I was also wondering what final -x in Vegreville's s^axpex and s^ag.owex >might represent morphologically? Is it the multiplicative? From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 12 16:32:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:32:34 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program Message-ID: > And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and such when the time is closer. I'd suggest participants who are junior faculty members or graduate students in their respective institutions for session chairs, as they can best use an extra line on their Vita. It may not count for much, but everything adds up over the years. Bob From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed May 12 19:04:17 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:04:17 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233AB4@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: OK - I can take a hint. Sign me up. What do I have to do? Linda Quoting "Rankin, Robert L" : > > And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and > have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? > I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and > such when the time is closer. > > I'd suggest participants who are junior faculty members or graduate > students in their respective institutions for session chairs, as they > can best use an extra line on their Vita. It may not count for much, > but everything adds up over the years. > > Bob > > > From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Wed May 12 20:11:27 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:11:27 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program Message-ID: Nothing too painful! Give speakers a sign of some sort if they're going over their allotted 30 minutes... tell us who the next speaker is. That's about it. Do you have a preference of which session? Thanks! Catherine lcumberl at indiana.edu Sent by: To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu owner-siouan at lists.c cc: olorado.edu Subject: RE: Tentative Program 05/12/04 02:04 PM Please respond to siouan OK - I can take a hint. Sign me up. What do I have to do? Linda Quoting "Rankin, Robert L" : > > And while I'm asking for volunteers, I guess we could be formal and > have session chairs. Anyone want to do that? > I'll send out a more detailed version with times and room numbers and > such when the time is closer. > > I'd suggest participants who are junior faculty members or graduate > students in their respective institutions for session chairs, as they > can best use an extra line on their Vita. It may not count for much, > but everything adds up over the years. > > Bob > > > From Rgraczyk at aol.com Wed May 12 21:17:59 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:17:59 EDT Subject: reduplication Message-ID: I'm doing something on reduplication in Crow for the Siouan/Caddoan conference, and would like to include a brief survey of reduplication in other Siouan languages. I have little or no information on Dhegiha, Winnebago and Chiwere. How does reduplication work in these languages? Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcumberl at indiana.edu Wed May 12 21:43:41 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:43:41 -0500 Subject: Tentative Program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Presumably, I can't take the session in which I'm speaking, myself, so how about Saturday afternoon. I could take Friday afternoon, if you'd prefer, but probably best not to volunteer for Fri. a.m. in case something happens to delay me on the road and I don't make it into town on schedule. Linda Quoting Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC : > > Nothing too painful! Give speakers a sign of some sort if they're going > over their allotted 30 minutes... tell us who the next speaker is. That's > about it. Do you have a preference of which session? Thanks! > Catherine > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 12 23:41:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:41:55 -0600 Subject: reduplication In-Reply-To: <15c.3459ccb8.2dd3ee87@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 May 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > I'm doing something on reduplication in Crow for the Siouan/Caddoan > conference, and would like to include a brief survey of reduplication in > other Siouan languages. I have little or no information on Dhegiha, > Winnebago and Chiwere. How does reduplication work in these languages? One place with OP and Wi examples (albeit some of them misanalyzed) is the old Siouan survey article in HBNAIL, by Swanton and Boas. In OP there are no CVC roots for purposes of reduplication. Reduplication is of roots, not stems, e.g., an instrumental stem reduplicates its root, not the whole stem. An exception is es^e's^e 'you keep saying' < es^e' 'you say'. A C1V1C2V2 root reduplicates as C1V1C1V1C2C2. C1E roots reduplicate as C1aC1a, e.g., sasa < se. In this case se is really only found as an instrumental root (e.g., ga'se 'cut with a blow', we'base 'saw', etc.) and as a redplicated root sasa 'cut'. It process is essentially a way of making a distributive stem, and while it is not exactly pervasive, I think it is productive, or was in the 1800s. The examples in Dorsey seem spontaneous, not lexicalized. See, for example, the cases occuring in my recent post on /the/ vs/ /dhaN/. JEK From BARudes at aol.com Thu May 13 01:39:17 2004 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 21:39:17 EDT Subject: reduplication Message-ID: Randy, For what it is worth, here is what I have written in my draft grammar of Catawba about reduplication in that language. (Sb after a gloss means the form comes from Frank T. Siebert's notes.) Blair 3.1.1.2 Reduplicated Stems. A root morpheme, in particular a verb root, may be repeated to form a stem that expresses continued or sustained action in space or time, or intensive or distributive notions. In Catawba, the repeated form of the root is identical in phonemic structure to the base root, that it, there is no reduction or other phonological change in the shape of the root. Reduplication takes place before stress-assignment (section 2.1.3). Examples of inflected reduplicated stems and their inflected, un-reduplicated counterparts are the following. b?u?hiree 'it sparks, flashes; he shoots (a gun)' (Sb) buu?b?u?hiree 'it sparkles' (Sb) c^??hiree 'it strikes causing a sound, makes a sound by striking' (Sb) ce^?c^??hiree 'it ticks (as a clock), makes a ticking sound' (Sb) c^?u?hiree 'he chops, gives a chop or a peck' (Sb) c^uu?c^?u?hiree 'he pecks (as a woodpecker)' (Sb) haam?N?haree 'he breathes' (Sb) haamuN?haam?N?haree 'he pants, breathes rapidly' (Sb) k?a?hiree 'he hits, strikes' (Sb) kaa?k?a?hiree 'he beats, strikes over and over' (Sb) t??hiree 'he crushes, compresses, presses down' (Sb) ti?t??hiree 'he pounds, mashes to bits' (Sb) w?N?hiree 'he jumps, leaps, gives a jump' (Sb) waN?w?N?hiree 'he hops, keeps jumping' (Sb) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 05:11:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:11:17 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) (cor-correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > 90:721.1 > > maNc^hu'-sabe, naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki > => sage => s^age > > grizzly-bear claws their hands some if you have Lovely. My correction was wrong, too. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 06:52:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 00:52:16 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (more body parts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have here some additional body parts, working a bit differently from the first set. Incidentally here and before I was including all available examples, eliminating only certain repetitions of the same example or nearly the same example in the same or nearly the same story. I finally omitted a few additional examples of ppa'=dhaN 'the head'. a 'arm' Usually =khe, singular or plural, but there are some examples of =the with particular kinds of plurality. 90:421.15 a'=khe u'=i his arm he was wounded (in) 90:436.19 a'=khe e'dhaN=dha=i the arm he was hit [on his] 90:81.20 a'=khe agdhaN'kkaNhaN kkaN'ttaN=bi=egaN, her arms on either side she having been tied (by) uba'ttihedha=bi= thaN=ama she was hanging up PROGR 90:422.6 a'=the akki'dha ubdaN' his arms both I held him by 90:428.2 ttas^a'ge a'=the deer claw (rattles) their (individually single) hands udhaNwakhidha=bi=egaN having made them hold them in ni'tta '(outer) ear' Here the article is =the, but, unfortunately, this is the only example of an article with the 'outer ear' word. 90:136.12 ni'tta aN'ma=the the other ear naNghi'de '(inner) ear, facility of hearing' Here the article is also =the with the 'inner ear' word, but we can't really argue for any clear comparaiblity with the previous word, and only singular or abstract references are available. 90:246.9 naNghi'de=the ukki'dhabi=egN his (inner) ear he spoke into 90:774.4 naNghi'de=the adhiN=ga your inner ear keep it (in) hiN' 'body hair, fur' Three different articles, =dhaN, =ge, and =khe. 90:151.11 hiN'=dhaN bibi'za=bi=ama their hair they having rubbed dry 90:237.1 ppe' uttaN'na=di hiN'=ge naa'=z^ida=bi=egaN forehead in the middle the hairs being yellowed by heat 90:258.9 hiN'=khe bdhu'ga=xti kkigdhi'hedaN=bi=ama his hair quite all he made it bristle up ppahiN' 'hair' Here =khe, but, unfortunately, only the single example. 90:210.14 e'gidhe ppahiN'=khe iN?idha=ga then the hair give it back to me Here ppahiN' refers to a detached scalp lock. naNz^i'=ha 'head hair, skin of head with attached hair (scalp)' The =dhaN article seems to imply part of the whole extent of the scalp. The =khe article seems to mean the whole scalp. The =ge article seems to mean several head hairs or several scalps. 90:181.4 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN zi=xc^iu akh=ama his hair very yellow he was one 90:582.6 tte=nu'ga naNz^i'=ha=dhaN udhaN' buffalo bull his head hair he seized These first two examples of naNz^i'=ha=dhaN above don't seem to be properly "partitive." 90:591.16 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN i'dhiskiski=xti=aN=bi=ama his hair it was very tangled (Dorsey renders dhaN as 'the (part)'. I believe in this case he means a particular patch or area within the whole head of hair, an idenfiying characteristic of the Orphan.) 90:597.6 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN=s^ti naNxdhaN'z^e=xti=aN=ama his hair too it was very tangled (Dorsey again renders dhaN as 'the (part)'.) 90:615.16 naNz^i'=ha=dhaN part of her hair 90:625.15 ni'as^iNga naNz^i'=ha=dhaN=s^ti he'be dhiza'=bi=egaN person his scalp too part taking it (along) 90:593.2 naNz^i'=ha=khe=s^ti u'daN=xti=bi=gaN his hair too as it was very good 90:601.7 WahaN'dhis^ige naNz^i'=ha=ge=s^te=waN naxdhaN'z^e=xti khi'=ama Orphan even his hair(s) very tangled he returned 90:298.14 naNz^i'=ha=ge bdhu'ga maa'=waxaN=bi=ama the hair (scalps) all he cut it off of [the four of] them ppa' 'head' With =dhaN, singular or plural. With =the in some cases of sets of multiple heads. With =ge for several heads of different individuals. 90:20.6 ppa'=dhaN the head 90:26.15 ppa'=dhaN my head 90:282.16 gagi'gighe, ppa'=dhaN maNs^i' he coiled himself up, his head high 90:314.13 ppa'=dhaN sippa'=the dhinaNha your head his toe he kicks you aside (with) dhe'=dhe=s^tes^te=waN even if he sends [even if he suddenly] 90:245.19 ppa'=xti=dhaN ihe'=dha=bi=egaN the very head having laid it on (i.e., whacked it with) 90:592.10 ppa'=xti=dhaN e'dhaNbe only the head was visible 90:232.14 Na'daN is^ta' ppa'=the z^u'=gdhe ga'gha=ga. thus eye its nose with it make Dhibdha's^ka=xc^i=ga ppa'=dhaN Flatten out its head 90:428.9 Ppa'dhiNgahige ppa'=dhaN e'dhaN=dha=i Pawnee Chief the head they hit (shot) him in 90:463.3 ppa'=dhaN e'dhaN=dha=i the head they hit him on 90:560.14 ppa'=dhaN dhiza'=bi=egaN the head having removed 90:561.2 ppa'=dhaN uxpa'dhe=ama the head fell off 90:265.18 ppa'=dhaN their heads 90:61.12 (572.1 572.6 similar) ttaNga'=xti=ma ppa'=dhaN u'dhaN=bi=egaN the big ones their heads holding them by 90:61.12 ppa'=dhaN wadhi'xaNxaN=bi=egaN their heads pulling them off 90:111.8 Kki WahaN'dhis^ige=akha ppa'=dhaN a'kkidha=bi=ama And the Orphan its heads he attacked 90:111.12 E'gidhe ppa'=dhaN wiN gasa'=bi=ama Finally one of the heads he cut it off 90:111.15 Kki ppa'=the i'dha=bi=ama and the (seven) heads (of the Seven-Headed Monster) he found 90:111.16 Kki e'tti=i=the=di waN'gidhe ?iN akhi'=bi=ama ppa'=the and to his lodge all carrying he came the heads 90:122.15 ppa'=dhaN the (two) heads (of seven) 90:123.11 ppa'=the the (three) heads (of seven) 90:249.10 ppa'=ge wa'thaN maNdhiN'=tta=ama their (various) heads treading on them he will walk 90:427.16 ppa'=ge wakkaN'thaN s^aN'ge=ma dhisnu'=wakhidha=i their heads tying them to their horses they made them be dragged naNs^ki' 'head' Consistently with =dhaN, whether singular or plural. 90:77.3 naNs^ki'=dhaN hiN' dhiNge'=xti=aN He'ga his head feathers it had none at all Buzzard 90:91.6 naNs^ki'=dhaN gaxdhi' idhe'dha=bi=ama his head he smashed in he sent it (i.e., he did it suddenly) 90:180.13 naNs^ki'=dhaN his head 90:619.7 naNs^ki=dhaN=s^te=waN even his head 90:433.3 naNs^ki'=dhaN sa'ba=z^i=xti maN'zeppe=z^iNga i'thiN=bi=ama his head very suddenly small axe he hit him with 90:389.5 naNs^ki'=dhaN our heads From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 07:19:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 01:19:20 -0600 Subject: Summary for OP Bodypart Classes Message-ID: Cutting to the chase and omitting the examples: a 'arm' Usually =khe, singular or plural. There are some examples of =the with particular kinds of plurality, specifically, once with 'both the arms' (the pattern Rory and I would have expected with pairs and sets), and once with '(one each of) their several arms'. ni'tta '(outer) ear' Here the article is =the, but, unfortunately, this is the only example of an article with the 'outer ear' word. naNghi'de '(inner) ear, facility of hearing' Here the article is also =the with the 'inner ear' word, but we can't really argue for any clear comparaiblity with the previous word, and only singular or abstract references are available. hiN' 'body hair, fur' Three different articles, =dhaN, =ge, and =khe. While =ge refers to individual hairs, the difference between =dhaN and =khe is not clear, unless it follows the principle with naNz^i'ha. ppahiN' 'hair' Here =khe, but, unfortunately, only the single example. naNz^i'=ha 'head hair, skin of head with attached hair (scalp)' The =dhaN article seems to imply part of the whole extent of the scalp. The =khe article seems to mean the whole scalp. The =ge article seems to mean several head hairs or several scalps. ppa' 'head' With =dhaN, singular or plural. With =the in some cases of sets of multiple heads (again Rory's expected pattern). With =ge for several heads of different individuals. If there is a general pattern of usage it seems to be: - One particular article =dhaN, =the, =khe with singular or plural references (where a body has more than one part of a kind). One might want to go back to the examples and notice the case of ppa'=the 'the nose' vs. ppa'=dhaN 'the head'. - =the with specially marked sets of multiple parts (all the heads, both arms, just one arm from each individual). - =dhaN with part of an extensive feature like 'hair'. - =khe with all of an extensive feature like 'hair'. - =ge with less marked cases of plurality resulting from multiple bodies. In some ways this is just a bodypart specialization of the usual pattern: - dhaN - compact, individuated, partitive - the - extended, series (if noted) - khe - surface, zone or totality (if noted) - ge - unconfigured set, multiple individuals There are clearly some details of the contrasts that are not simply captured. For example, why z^i'be=khe? On the other hand, =khe does sometimes seem to be "in a horizontal line" or "supine" or "dead" and =the does seem to be sometimes "vertical" or "stacked, piled, put into a confining container." In some cases it is natural to point out configurational changes due to plurality, but in other cases this is ignored. From rankin at ku.edu Thu May 13 14:40:27 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:40:27 -0500 Subject: reduplication Message-ID: Randy, What is true for John's Omaha examples is also true for Kansa. I did not get a lot of reduplication, but when I did, it seemed mostly to signal iterative aspect. Only root CV sequences are reduplicated. The verb 'say' may follow the Omaha pattern in Kaw -- I'm not sure. If it does, it's for the same reason as in Omaha, namely that the inflected forms have become opaque and second person /$-/ is mistaken for part of the root. (The re-analyzed and reduplicated 'say' forms are the ones that give those wonderful examples in Dakota like "Oompapa" /uNphapha/ which should mean something like 'I keep telling the two of us'. Here, 1st person /p-ha/ is from underlying *w-ha 'I-say'.) I can try to find some examples if you like. Bob ************************ > I have little or no information on Dhegiha, Winnebago and Chiwere. > How does reduplication work in these languages? > Randy From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 13 21:38:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:38:15 -0600 Subject: reduplication In-Reply-To: <009901c438f8$4e90bdd0$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What is true for John's Omaha examples is also true for Kansa. I did > not get a lot of reduplication, but when I did, it seemed mostly to > signal iterative aspect. Looking at just the reduplication examples that had turned up accidentally in the bodypart gender examples, I'd have to say that an iterative sense is at least as common as the distributive gloss I suggested. The 'greasy hands' example is probably distributive. The 'tangled hair' example could be taken as completive, i.e., 'thoroughly tangled'. These chance examples weren't particularly instructive as to morphology, but one thing I think they did convey well was that you could find a fair number of examples of reduplication even in a small sample from the Dorsey corpus and that they were used in a fairly spontaneous way, i.e., they were not just a few lexicalized fossil forms. At the same time they are not integrated into the grammar of verb stem plurality as they are in Dakotan. It's a deriational device, but though pervasive and probably productive, not so frequent as to be particularly noticeable. I think most students of Dhegiha take them to be perhaps less common than they really are. I don't recall any examples of reduplicated numerals in Dhegiha such as there are in Dakotan. A pity, since the Dakota forms are quite instructive! From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 14 20:34:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:34:46 -0500 Subject: reduplication Message-ID: Re: John's comment of 'distributive/iterative' uses of redup in Omaha. It's probably important to check on the (inherent?) aspect of the verb in question in each instance as a part of determining the semantics of reduplication in Omaha and other Dhegiha. It may well be different for active and stative verbs at the very least. I'm not fond of the "accomplishments", "achievements", etc. classification because of semantic overlap among the categories, but it might provide further classification. Randy ought to have an interesting paper. I'm eager to see what he's learned. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 14 20:44:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:44:44 -0600 Subject: reduplication In-Reply-To: <00d701c439f2$f7eba160$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > It's probably important to check on the (inherent?) aspect of the verb in > question in each instance as a part of determining the semantics of > reduplication in Omaha and other Dhegiha. I think you're right. I've often wished I could figure out a way to search for reduplications the DOrsey texts. It is possible to search for words with adjacent repetitions of two characters or more, though not with the tools I've been using lately! But even in the list of body part examples I turned up bibize 'squeeze dry', in which I eventually realized that the first bi is the PRESS instrumental. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 01:53:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:53:10 -0600 Subject: OP khe-Gender Message-ID: Here is a list of words with khe (KE'2 in the SIouan Archives, for k) following them in about the first two hundred pages of the Dorsey texts. It may seem puzzling that z^'ibe 'lower leg' isn't in this list. This is because it occurs first after page 200! What appears from this list is that a number of perhaps surprising categories of things are khe-nouns. If I were more widely read in classificatory systems, it might be that I would be less surprised. As students of Dhegiha are already aware =khe is used frequently with dead or (perhaps involuntarily or unnaturally) supine animate nouns. I think it was Catherine who suggested that perhaps we should just start adding khe to the list of animate articles. It also seems to be regularly used with "long" body parts, even if they might typically be thought of as oriented vertically, like legs. So far the main body part I know of with which =the is used is 'ears' (inner and outer, which are quite different things in Omaha-Ponca). I havne't looked yet to see if there are others. (The =the article is used, of course, with pairs or other multiple body parts, though, as we have seen, only in certain rather marked contexts.) The =khe article is used with long tools, like 'bows' and 'arrows' and weapons generally, as well as 'bridles'. It is also used with containers, like 'bags' and 'bowls' and 'quivers' and 'deep hollows'. It is regularly used with 'hills', but not exclusively, e.g., we also find ppahe'=dhaN. It is used with 'edges'. Also with some things that might be considered expanses, like 'snow', 'sky', 'cloud', and 'ground', and maybe 'sand' and 'water' and 'ice' and 'thicket'. It is used with some less obvious things like 'deed', and 'slice' and 'food'. a' 'arm' a'dhiN 'ridge' baghu' 'peak (mountain)' dhie' 'side, flank' ha'az^iNga 'cord' he' 'horn' hedhu'baz^aN 'swing' hiNxpe' 'fine feather' huhu' 'fish' (dead or at last caught) i'e 'words' iN'?e 'stone' (hmm - also =the - maybe plural only - and =dhaN) is^ta'ha 'eyelid' kkaN'ha 'border, edge' ma' 'snow' maN 'arrow' maNc^hu' '(dead) grizzly bear' maN'de 'bow' maN'ghe 'sky' maNxpi' 'cloud' maN'z^iha 'quiver' maN'zedhahe 'bridle' maN'zewethiN 'sword' ma's^aN 'feather' naN'de 'side of the tent' ni(N)'gha 'stomach' ni'as^iNga ppia'z^i 'bad man (dead)' ni'as^iNga sighdha=i 'person's trail (tracks)' niN 'water' niN'de 'cooked stuff' nini'ba 'pipe' niN'ttaNga 'large body of water' nu'ghe 'ice' nu'z^iNga 'boy (dead, lying)' ppah'e 'hill' ppe'z^e 'grass' ppiza' 'sand' s^aN'ttaNga '(dead) wolf' s^iN'gaz^iNga 'infant (lying)' si' 'foot' si'gdhe 'footprint' sihi' 'foot' siN'de 'tail' snede=a'xti=s^naN 'what is usually really long' (foot) ttaN'de 'ground' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' tta'xti '(dead) deer' tte' 'buffalo meat' (dead buffalo?) ttemaN'ge 'buffalo breast' ttez^e'ga 'buffalo thigh (upper leg)' tti' 'lodge (thrown down, i.e., taken down)' tti' 'lodges (collective)' tti'ha a'kkibesaN 'tentskin fold' u'?e 'field' uc^hi'z^e 'thicket' uhaN'ge 'beginning, end (margin)' umiN'z^e 'couch, bed' u's?u 'slice' u's^kaN 'deed' uxdhu'xa 'deep hollow' uxpe' z^iNga 'small bowl' u'z^iha 'bag' wa?u' 'woman (lying, bound)' wac^hi's^ka 'creek' wadha'the 'food' wahi' 'bone' wahu'ttaNdhiN 'gun' wakkaN'da(gi) '(dead) water deity' wakku' 'awl' wappe' 'weapon' we's?a 'snake' xa'de tti 'grass lodge' xdhabe' 'tree' (presumably fallen) z^aN' 'wood' z^aN'z^iNga 'stick' z^e' 'penis' z^u'ga 'body' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 02:53:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:53:11 -0600 Subject: OP the-Gender Nouns Message-ID: I repeated the 200 page experiment for the-nouns. I may not have caught all of the examples in this span as it is sometimes hard to distinguish 'when' and 'evidential' uses quickly and I was trying to avoid these. I also omitted some nominalizations, more or less complex, and things like 'the first' and 'the second', etc. The body part list, excluding more or less clear plural uses, includes 'hand', 'mouth', and, of course, 'ear'. As far as manufactured objects or tools, we have mostly parts of things, e.g., 'arrow heads' and 'head of bow', although in some cases the reference is clearly plural, and perhaps we have =the as plural of =khe. Note that in the usual progression we think of =khe as a plural relative to =the. Perhaps in this category we have he'be 'piece'. Many things listed seem to be plural or collected, but this is clearly not the only kind of =the example. Quite a number of thins that also appear as =khe nouns appear as =the nouns, not necessarily with a clear plural sense, e.g., 'cord' and 'water'. Time periods, e.g., seasons, seem to be =the nouns. Certain physical features of the landscape are =the, e.g., 'spring' and 'cliff'. The main cases where vertical vs. horizontal seem to come into play are with 'lodge' and 'tree'. dhe'ghegakku 'drum' dhe'ze 'tongues' ha'z^iNga 'cord' he'be 'piece' hi'gaN 'myth' hu' 'voice' i' 'mouth' i'e 'speech, words' iN'?e 'stone(s?)' ma'dhe 'winter' maN' 'arrows' maNa' 'cliff' maNde'ppa 'head of bow' maN'hiNsi 'arrow heads' maNnaN's^ude 'dust from treading the ground' maN'sa 'arrow shafts' mas^aN 'feathers (a collected bunch)' maxu'de 'ashes' naNbe' 'hand' nihaN'ga 'spring (of water)' niN' 'water' ni'tta 'ear' nu'ge 'summer' ppa 'heads (a set of several from a decapitated monster)' ppai' 'points' ppa'ze 'evenings' ppe'de 'fire' s^kaN' 'deed' sigdhe' 'trail (footprints?)' sihi' 'feet' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' tti' 'lodge' tti'z^ebe, ttiz^e'be 'door' u?u'de 'hole' u'haN 'cooking' umaN'(?)e 'provisions' umiN'z^e 'couch, bed' u's?u 'slices' u's^kaN 'deed(s?)' uxpe' 'bowl' wa?aN' 'song' wa?iN' 'pack' wa'dhaha 'clothing' wadhatha=i 'what they ate (a piece)' was^iN' 'fat' xdhabe' 'tree' z^aN' 'tree' z^aNxdhu'?a 'hollow tree' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 17:03:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:03:23 -0600 Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice Message-ID: I've just received a diagnostic email message from a user's email service indicating that a message from the list to them was rejected because it seemed like spam. As far as I know, in this case the user didn't receive any notification at all. The posting was one of the lists of Omaha-Ponca nouns by gender, so Net Siouan was at fault. It also occurs to me that the technical word for the male sex organ was one of the glosses in that list. Hmm. (Make note to resort to euphemisms in the future.) If I notice any of these rejections I will let the beneficiary know, but an awful lot of the list-diagnostic mail of this nature I get consists of either (a) letters indicating that a nonsubscriber was trying to post spam or viruses to the list (more attempted spam than actual postings these days) or (b) letters indicating that a subscriber's mailbox is full. Now, as to these latter messages, they are particularly common with certain users and certain free mail services. It is possible to set the list to automatically unsubscribe users whose mail is bounced as undeliverable, but so far I've felt that this would undully penalize subscribers who need to use free email services. Not to mention I'm not sure under what conditions the automatic deletion takes affect. Anybody's mailbox might be down for a few days from time to time. The down side of this is that I don't read the diagnostic mailings from the list server as attentatively as I once did. So, to make this all more manageable, I may at some point elect to unsubscribe manually those users who are particularly consistent about full-mailbox bounces. The awkward thing is that I have no way to notify them that they are deleted. So, if you fall into this category and you think that the list has been awful quite recently, you should check the archive at http://www.linguistlist.org or drop me a line. I will be happy to reinstate interested parties with no hard feelings, but I get one diagnostic message per posting per full mailbox and the cummulative effect at times is not unlike the Chinese water torture if continued over several weeks. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 17 17:08:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:08:25 -0600 Subject: OP khe-Gender (resent) Message-ID: This is the euphemized version of a post that even my system classified as spam. Let me know if you don't get it. (Grin.) Here is a list of words with khe (KE'2 in the SIouan Archives, for k) following them in about the first two hundred pages of the Dorsey texts. It may seem puzzling that z^'ibe 'lower leg' isn't in this list. This is because it occurs first after page 200! What appears from this list is that a number of perhaps surprising categories of things are khe-nouns. If I were more widely read in classificatory systems, it might be that I would be less surprised. As students of Dhegiha are already aware =khe is used frequently with dead or (perhaps involuntarily or unnaturally) supine animate nouns. I think it was Catherine who suggested that perhaps we should just start adding khe to the list of animate articles. It also seems to be regularly used with "long" body parts, even if they might typically be thought of as oriented vertically, like legs. So far the main body part I know of with which =the is used is 'ears' (inner and outer, which are quite different things in Omaha-Ponca). I havne't looked yet to see if there are others. (The =the article is used, of course, with pairs or other multiple body parts, though, as we have seen, only in certain rather marked contexts.) The =khe article is used with long tools, like 'bows' and 'arrows' and weapons generally, as well as 'bridles'. It is also used with containers, like 'bags' and 'bowls' and 'quivers' and 'deep hollows'. It is regularly used with 'hills', but not exclusively, e.g., we also find ppahe'=dhaN. It is used with 'edges'. Also with some things that might be considered expanses, like 'snow', 'sky', 'cloud', and 'ground', and maybe 'sand' and 'water' and 'ice' and 'thicket'. It is used with some less obvious things like 'deed', and 'slice' and 'food'. a' 'arm' a'dhiN 'ridge' baghu' 'peak (mountain)' dhie' 'side, flank' ha'az^iNga 'cord' he' 'horn' hedhu'baz^aN 'swing' hiNxpe' 'fine feather' huhu' 'fish' (dead or at last caught) i'e 'words' iN'?e 'stone' (hmm - also =the - maybe plural only - and =dhaN) is^ta'ha 'eyelid' kkaN'ha 'border, edge' ma' 'snow' maN 'arrow' maNc^hu' '(dead) grizzly bear' maN'de 'bow' maN'ghe 'sky' maNxpi' 'cloud' maN'z^iha 'quiver' maN'zedhahe 'bridle' maN'zewethiN 'sword' ma's^aN 'feather' naN'de 'side of the tent' ni(N)'gha 'stomach' ni'as^iNga ppia'z^i 'bad man (dead)' ni'as^iNga sighdha=i 'person's trail (tracks)' niN 'water' niN'de 'cooked stuff' nini'ba 'pipe' niN'ttaNga 'large body of water' nu'ghe 'ice' nu'z^iNga 'boy (dead, lying)' ppah'e 'hill' ppe'z^e 'grass' ppiza' 'sand' s^aN'ttaNga '(dead) wolf' s^iN'gaz^iNga 'infant (lying)' si' 'foot' si'gdhe 'footprint' sihi' 'foot' siN'de 'tail' snede=a'xti=s^naN 'what is usually really long' (foot) ttaN'de 'ground' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' tta'xti '(dead) deer' tte' 'buffalo meat' (dead buffalo?) ttemaN'ge 'buffalo [chest area]' ttez^e'ga 'buffalo thigh (upper leg)' tti' 'lodge (thrown down, i.e., taken down)' tti' 'lodges (collective)' tti'ha a'kkibesaN 'tentskin fold' u'?e 'field' uc^hi'z^e 'thicket' uhaN'ge 'beginning, end (margin)' umiN'z^e 'couch, bed' u's?u 'slice' u's^kaN 'deed' uxdhu'xa 'deep hollow' uxpe' z^iNga 'small bowl' u'z^iha 'bag' wa?u' 'woman (lying, bound)' wac^hi's^ka 'creek' wadha'the 'food' wahi' 'bone' wahu'ttaNdhiN 'gun' wakkaN'da(gi) '(dead) water deity' wakku' 'awl' wappe' 'weapon' we's?a 'snake' xa'de tti 'grass lodge' xdhabe' 'tree' (presumably fallen) z^aN' 'wood' z^aN'z^iNga 'stick' z^e' '[male generative organ]' z^u'ga 'body' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed May 19 00:55:47 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:55:47 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I decided to wait till I had checked with the speakers again before replying to this thread, and by now John has gone far beyond me! >> Rory said: >> Thus, one leg would be /khe/, "elongate", but both legs would be /the/, >> "the set". One eye would be /dhaN/, "globular", but both eyes would be >> /the/. A single hand, however, is still /the/, I suppose because all >> the fingers composing it are regarded as a set. John commented: > I hadn't realized that legs were horizontal, which is sort of interesting > in itself. Elongate, not horizontal. But I think John and Catherine have already taken that position. When I first asked the speakers about body parts a couple of months ago, it seemed they consistently preferred /tHe/ for a set. When I brought the discussion around to eyes, I tried the idea of 'cross-eyed'. Their first response was /iNs^ta' dhoN/ (are crossed). I asked if you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ (are crossed), and they said it sounded better that way. This past week, after John's posting, I asked again. This time they flatly denied that you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ for human eyes; it must be /dhoN/ even in the plural. So for 'cross-eyed' we now have: iNs^ta' dhoN xa'wiN iNs^ta' [dhoN] dhixa'wiN "s/he is cross-eyed" "s/he crossed his/her eyes" (stative verb form) (active verb form) For animals, however, we can say /iNs^ta' tHe/, as in the following example they gave me: iNs^ta' tHe unaa'goNba "their eyes light up" (referring to the eyes of coyotes at night in the headlights) With legs, they agreed that it could be either /tHe/ or /kHe/ depending on how you were using it. But in specific examples, they seemed to use these to distinguish the set from the singular: z^ega' tHe z^ega' kHe "both legs" "one leg" z^ega' tHe oNni'e z^ega' kHe oNni'e "my legs hurt" "my leg hurts" z^ega' tHe dhihoN' z^ega' kHe dhihoN' "elevate both legs" "elevate one leg" Tangentially to this inquiry, I learned some nuances to the 'leg' terms. It seems that /z^ega'/ is the term for the whole (mammalian) leg. Previously, I had thought it just referred to the thigh. Fletcher and La Flesche have either /z^i'be/ or /hi'/ for 'leg'. Our speakers do not seem to recognize /hi'/ as an independent term for 'leg' at all, though it is still good for 'trunk', 'stalk' or 'stem'. They consider /z^i'be/ to be 'leg', especially the front from the knee down, or in other words the shin. The shin bone itself is /noN'xpahi/. The metatarsal segment, the part of the foot between the ankle and the toes, is /sihi'/. On horses, this seems to hold for front and back legs: the entire leg is /z^ega'/, while the metatarsal or metacarpal segment down to the hoof is /sihi'/. For a /wagdhi's^ka/, the class of crawling creatures that includes insects and lizards, the whole leg is /sihi'/. Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed May 19 14:56:49 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:56:49 -0500 Subject: comparative dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In working on North American ethnonyms (and some other words of native American origin) for the OED, I've often benefited from the treasure of unpublished comparative lexical material (and wisdom) that exist for most language families. Most recently, it was the terminology of wild cats (as it relates to 'Erie') in Iroquoian, but it's also been 'Mandan' in Siouan and 'Peoria' in Algonquian on the "large" end of the scale and 'camas' in Sahaptian on the "small," as well as Chinookan and Athapaskan and Muskogean... My queries about plans for comparative dictionaries are usually met with the same plaintive response: "it's a long-standing personal goal of mine and of others, but there's nothing likely in the near future." There must be many hurdles to such a project: two that come immediately to mind are money, and the natural (and laudable) academic inclination not to publish until one's research is "complete." Can those with experience of the Comparative Siouan Dictionary project (and any similar undertakings) comment briefly on the nature of those obstacles and what might be done to surmount or obviate them? The Web would certainly facilitate the publication of comparative dictionaries "in progress," even one word at a time, and the availability of even a limited amount of material would have the effect of encouraging other contributions and creating a basis for further work. I hope I'll be excused for my temerity in raising this subject: ignorance of the practical difficulties makes it easier! Thanks for any thoughts, Alan From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Wed May 19 15:44:54 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:44:54 +0100 Subject: comparative dictionaries Message-ID: Alan: As someone who is also an Americanist and who has also worked for the OED, I can say that there is a lot of comparative lexiocgraphical material out there which is unpublished and much of this seems fair set to remain so. I know of comparative lexica of Sahaptian, Uto-Aztecan, Muskogean and Tanoan whch are as yet unpublished. David Pentland has an ongoing comparative Algonquian dictionary. I've also seen fragments of an early version of the CSD. For some families deep inter-branch fissures mean that comparative dictionaries could be of limited scale - Caddoan, Iroquoian and arguably Algonquian if you inciroprate Blackfoot (and, if you like, the Catawba-Woccon wing of Greater Siouan) would fit here. For myself, I wish people would publish comparative Swadesh lists of some of these languages - at least then one has a start towards a comparative dictionary. Anthony >>> ahartley at d.umn.edu 19/05/2004 15:56:49 >>> In working on North American ethnonyms (and some other words of native American origin) for the OED, I've often benefited from the treasure of unpublished comparative lexical material (and wisdom) that exist for most language families. Most recently, it was the terminology of wild cats (as it relates to 'Erie') in Iroquoian, but it's also been 'Mandan' in Siouan and 'Peoria' in Algonquian on the "large" end of the scale and 'camas' in Sahaptian on the "small," as well as Chinookan and Athapaskan and Muskogean... My queries about plans for comparative dictionaries are usually met with the same plaintive response: "it's a long-standing personal goal of mine and of others, but there's nothing likely in the near future." There must be many hurdles to such a project: two that come immediately to mind are money, and the natural (and laudable) academic inclination not to publish until one's research is "complete." Can those with experience of the Comparative Siouan Dictionary project (and any similar undertakings) comment briefly on the nature of those obstacles and what might be done to surmount or obviate them? The Web would certainly facilitate the publication of comparative dictionaries "in progress," even one word at a time, and the availability of even a limited amount of material would have the effect of encouraging other contributions and creating a basis for further work. I hope I'll be excused for my temerity in raising this subject: ignorance of the practical difficulties makes it easier! Thanks for any thoughts, Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 16:36:16 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:36:16 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I decided to wait till I had checked with the speakers again before > replying to this thread, and by now John has gone far beyond me! It is, of course, delightful that you can do this! > Elongate, not horizontal. But I think John and Catherine have > already taken that position. Elgonate certainly seems to describe the usage better with body parts and maybe tools (or perhaps artifacts would be a better word). > When I first asked the speakers about body parts a couple of months > ago, it seemed they consistently preferred /tHe/ for a set. When I > brought the discussion around to eyes, I tried the idea of 'cross-eyed'. > Their first response was /iNs^ta' dhoN/ (are crossed). I think the difference here is subtle, and that /the/ for sets (tHe in the Macy Schools orthgoraphy, with H representing superscript h) works when either the settedness is quite important or when it is a case of an organized set across multiple individuals - like the eyes of the coyotes below. I think in this case =the works a lot like =ma for animates. But =ge can occur in some cases for multiple body parts, possibly to indicate lack of organization - no long part of body, or selected randomly from the whole number available. Normally when referring to one or both (all) of a bodypart from a particular individual one uses the appropriate "singular" article, which seems to be mostly =dhaN (thoN) 'non-elogate' vs. =khe (kHe) 'elongate', though a few body parts seem to use =the (tHe). I'd wonder if you couldn't get i(N)s^ta'=the 'eyes' in cases like 'he was blind in both eyes' or 'both his eyes were itching a lot' or maybe 'one of his eyes was light colored' vs. 'both of his eyes were light colored'. But the difficulty of fishing with examples like this, though, is that it can deaden the sensibilities of the speakers - everything sounds right, even if it isn't - and/or back them into insisting on a certain perception of the situation among several that might be possible. When either of these situations arises you get cases of a speaker allowing or insisting on version a one day, and then insisting on version b another. In this particular case, it's possible that without just the right, rather marked conception of the situation one might normally still use =dhaN. It's safer to provide lots of examples taken from some sort of neutral source or to watch for examples in context and then ask about those. > I asked if you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ (are crossed), and they said it > sounded better that way. This past week, after John's posting, I asked > again. This time they flatly denied that you could say /iNs^ta' tHe/ > for human eyes; it must be /dhoN/ even in the plural. So for > 'cross-eyed' we now have: > > iNs^ta' dhoN xa'wiN iNs^ta' [dhoN] dhixa'wiN > "s/he is cross-eyed" "s/he crossed his/her eyes" > (stative verb form) (active verb form) Eyes from one individual. > For animals, however, we can say /iNs^ta' tHe/, as in the following > example they gave me: > > iNs^ta' tHe unaa'goNba > "their eyes light up" > (referring to the eyes of coyotes at night in the headlights) Eyes from multiple individuals, real or hypothetical. What would happen if speaking of humans generally or in a group and saying 'they squint or blink their eyes in bright sun'. > With legs, they agreed that it could be either /tHe/ or /kHe/ > depending on how you were using it. But in specific examples, > they seemed to use these to distinguish the set from the singular: > > z^ega' tHe z^ega' kHe > "both legs" "one leg" Which is where I'm coming from with my "both eyes" examples. However, the whole predicate has to make sense with the conception both and that might vary with the language. Even so, in English "both eyes were crossed" might be a bit moot, since, while the irregularity is esentially in one eye, the perception is that the alignment of both eyes - the whole gaze - is affected. > Tangentially to this inquiry, I learned some nuances to the 'leg' terms. > It seems that /z^ega'/ is the term for the whole (mammalian) leg. > Previously, I had thought it just referred to the thigh. Fletcher and > La Flesche have either /z^i'be/ or /hi'/ for 'leg'. I think Dorsey often specifies that z^i'be refers to the lower leg, though he never actually says 'shin'. > Our speakers do not seem to recognize /hi'/ as an independent term for > 'leg' at all, though it is still good for 'trunk', 'stalk' or 'stem'. I wonder if this might be different between Omaha and Ponca (or even among a really large group of Omaha speakers). > They consider /z^i'be/ to be 'leg', especially the front from the knee > down, or in other words the shin. The shin bone itself is /noN'xpahi/. > The metatarsal segment, the part of the foot between the ankle and the > toes, is /sihi'/. I've been wondering about sihi', which turns up in the Dorsey texts. > On horses, this seems to hold for front and back legs: the entire leg is > /z^ega'/, while the metatarsal or metacarpal segment down to the hoof is > /sihi'/. For a /wagdhi's^ka/, the class of crawling creatures that > includes insects and lizards, the whole leg is /sihi'/. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 16:48:35 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:48:35 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I decided to wait till I had checked with the speakers again before > replying to this thread, and by now John has gone far beyond me! A rather flattering appraisal. Actually, if it hadn't been for you and the others - Ardis, Bob, Catherine - discussing this I'd still be mired deep in complacency. Anyone have any ideas on why 'mouth' or 'hand' should be =the? '(Outer) ears' might, I suppose, be a set, but this doesn't seem to affect 'eyes'. A mouth is a rather complex assembly of lips and teeth, and a hand, like pants, is singular at the top and plural at the bottom. (Mark Twain?) But then why not 'foot'? I wish the Fletcher & LaFlesche body parts list had articles attached! It's begining to be clear that you'd probably have to list articles or something about articles with the nouns in an OP dictionary. There certainly seems to be some degree of conventionality regarding what range of articles you can use with particular nouns and what the implications are of using (each of) them. Some (inanimate) nouns might be dhaN/the/ge or khe/the/ge, others dhaN/the/khe/ge and so on. From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 17:38:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:38:46 -0500 Subject: OP articles. Message-ID: > It's begining to be clear that you'd probably have to list articles or > something about articles with the nouns in an OP dictionary. There > certainly seems to be some degree of conventionality regarding what range > of articles you can use with particular nouns and what the implications > are of using (each of) them. Some (inanimate) nouns might be dhaN/the/ge > or khe/the/ge, others dhaN/the/khe/ge and so on. Nick Evans in Melbourne asked me about this and I really couldn't answer authoritatively. He felt after my presentation that this was a transparent, descriptive, positional system. I said I didn't believe that ANY such system was really semantically natural, whether it involved gender, position, animacy, shape, texture, or whatever. Classificatory systems that see a lot of use (such as articles) *always* get conventionalized to one or another extent. I'd be willing to stick my neck out and claim it as a universal. It's probably worth doing a comprehensive search of the entire set of Dorsey texts for a listing and then comparing and adding to that with the kind of checking Rory is doing. I think it is important to double check all the various experiments with Ponca speakers in Oklahoma in order to eliminate any effects of lessened use of the languages in their respective communities. The forms that match after the 100 year+ separation should be considered established (especially if they agree with Dorsey 1890). The ones that don't match we can wonder about. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 17:54:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:41 -0500 Subject: comparative dictionaries Message-ID: > There must be many hurdles to such a project: two that come immediately > to mind are money, and the natural (and laudable) academic inclination > not to publish until one's research is "complete." Money would be nice, but the chief problem is that two of the three senior editors have essentially left the field entirely. The vast majority of lexical and morphological reconstructions had been done already, but the file is not in physical shape for me to edit. I think it is waiting for volunteers at Colorado to massage it into a Word for Windows file that can be easily edited. I should have time later in the Summer to do clean-up but only if the file is ready for it. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed May 19 18:38:26 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:38:26 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > Anyone have any ideas on why 'mouth' or 'hand' > should be =the? '(Outer) ears' might, I suppose, be a set, but this > doesn't seem to affect 'eyes'. A mouth is a rather complex assembly of > lips and teeth, and a hand, like pants, is singular at the top and > plural at the bottom. (Mark Twain?) But then why not 'foot'? I have the notion that apertures tend to be =tHe. If so, that will explain 'mouth' and '(inner) ear', but checking it against other parts of the anatomy may be awkward. For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set of fingers. Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' in MVS, could its original meaning have been 'finger'? This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, and probably was not derived as 'set of toes'. Rory From parksd at indiana.edu Wed May 19 19:12:32 2004 From: parksd at indiana.edu (Parks, Douglas R.) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:12:32 -0500 Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice Message-ID: John, The message below was sent to my spam quarantine. Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:03 PM To: Siouan List Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice I've just received a diagnostic email message from a user's email service indicating that a message from the list to them was rejected because it seemed like spam. As far as I know, in this case the user didn't receive any notification at all. The posting was one of the lists of Omaha-Ponca nouns by gender, so Net Siouan was at fault. It also occurs to me that the technical word for the male sex organ was one of the glosses in that list. Hmm. (Make note to resort to euphemisms in the future.) If I notice any of these rejections I will let the beneficiary know, but an awful lot of the list-diagnostic mail of this nature I get consists of either (a) letters indicating that a nonsubscriber was trying to post spam or viruses to the list (more attempted spam than actual postings these days) or (b) letters indicating that a subscriber's mailbox is full. Now, as to these latter messages, they are particularly common with certain users and certain free mail services. It is possible to set the list to automatically unsubscribe users whose mail is bounced as undeliverable, but so far I've felt that this would undully penalize subscribers who need to use free email services. Not to mention I'm not sure under what conditions the automatic deletion takes affect. Anybody's mailbox might be down for a few days from time to time. The down side of this is that I don't read the diagnostic mailings from the list server as attentatively as I once did. So, to make this all more manageable, I may at some point elect to unsubscribe manually those users who are particularly consistent about full-mailbox bounces. The awkward thing is that I have no way to notify them that they are deleted. So, if you fall into this category and you think that the list has been awful quite recently, you should check the archive at http://www.linguistlist.org or drop me a line. I will be happy to reinstate interested parties with no hard feelings, but I get one diagnostic message per posting per full mailbox and the cummulative effect at times is not unlike the Chinese water torture if continued over several weeks. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed May 19 19:14:21 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:14:21 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory wrote: > For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set > of fingers. Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' > in MVS, could its original meaning have been 'finger'? > This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, and probably > was not derived as 'set of toes'. I should have added that this hypothesis depends on OP tHe going back approximately as far as MVS. Perhaps John or Bob could comment on whether that's possible? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 19:22:53 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:22:53 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I have the notion that apertures tend to be =tHe. If so, that will > explain 'mouth' and '(inner) ear', but checking it against other parts > of the anatomy may be awkward. Yes, I can see where it might. Maybe 'navel' would be fairly neutral. 'Nostrils', unfortunately, are a set. > For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set of fingers. > Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' in MVS, could its original > meaning have been 'finger'? This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, > and probably was not derived as 'set of toes'. I think that Bob recently said that forms like *naNaNp-e were originally 'right hand'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 19:32:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:32:49 -0600 Subject: Warning: Your List Subscription May Be Edited Without Notice In-Reply-To: <52BA675BF5A226458392EB21207B522A966840@iu-mssg-mbx06.exchange.iu.edu> Message-ID: Interesting! Maybe I sound like a Nigerian letter? Please deposit $1000 in small bills in a bank account in my name and I will send you the ill gotten gains of the dictator of your choice! My bowdlerized list of khe body parts was *still* classified as spam at the U of Colorado, though that may have been the "NetSiouan" notation. The safest bet, for everything but sites that delete or return spam before it reaches the user, is to filter list mailings based on the address of the list. It's important to make sure that any spam filters follow any list filters! On Wed, 19 May 2004, Parks, Douglas R. wrote: > The message below was sent to my spam quarantine. (Message on various spam and list policy issues.) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 19 19:42:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:42:46 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Rory wrote: > > For 'hand', I still like the concept of it being a set > > of fingers. Since *naNpe is newly adopted to mean 'hand' > > in MVS, could its original meaning have been 'finger'? > > This wouldn't affect 'foot', which is older, and probably > > was not derived as 'set of toes'. > > I should have added that this hypothesis depends on OP tHe going back > approximately as far as MVS. Perhaps John or Bob could comment on > whether that's possible? The morpheme =the is that old or older because there are cognates (used as auxiliaries and positional verbs) across MVS. Use of *the as an article, however, seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. The whole Dhegiha article system seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. It's more likely, though this is not entirely clear, that Dakotan *ki(N) ~ *k(?uN)was an article or something like one in PS as a whole. As I recall there are some similar forms (among others) in Biloxi. Articles are not an area where you expect to see a whole lot of historical stability, however. Repeated reinnovation from the domain of third person pronominals/demonstratives is more the rule. I've always thought Greenberg's article on the origins of gender marking was very interesting in this line, and Bob's article on auxiliaries and positionals is also extremely important, not to mention being especially germain from a Siouan point of view. In any event, if =the indicates sets (among other things) you wouldn't need to be able to appeal to a PMV set meaning for *naNaNp-e to justify a "hand-as-set" analysis within a given Dhegiha language, or so it seems to me. From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed May 19 20:49:24 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:49:24 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Members: Please excuse me for budding in here. Rev. Riggs in his Dakota grammer book explains the Dakota counting system. The hand and fingers are the basis. I don't have the book here, so I can't quote. Thanks, Louie Garcia From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 21:32:33 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:32:33 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: > 'Nostrils', unfortunately, are a set. Is it possible that there are traces of a DUAL in some of these forms? Things like 'hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc.' that come in pairs are a good place to look for such morphology. Turkish, for example, is reputed to have special morphology for bodypart pairs. Quapaw, as documented by Dorsey, had a dual category among its deictic clusters in addition to singular and plural. I never ran across it in any other Dhegiha dialect, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. > I think that Bob recently said that forms like *naNaNp-e were originally > 'right hand'. Not me. *$a:ke was Proto-Siouan 'hand', while the nape word is strictly MVS. I don't know if there is any known vocabulary for "handedness" or not. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed May 19 21:40:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:40:29 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: > > I should have added that this hypothesis depends on OP tHe going back > > approximately as far as MVS. Perhaps John or Bob could comment on > > whether that's possible? > The morpheme =the is that old or older because there are cognates (used as > auxiliaries and positional verbs) across MVS. Use of *the as an article, > however, seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. The whole Dhegiha article > system seems to be a Dhegiha innovation. Definitely. Wi je, Dak. he, etc. are cognate and come from positional verb roots like most such. Mandan /te/ (unaspirated /t/), as described by Kennard 1936 certainly appears to be cognate, and that would get it outside MVS. > It's more likely, though this is > not entirely clear, that Dakotan *ki(N) ~ *k(?uN)was an article or > something like one in PS as a whole. As I recall there are some similar > forms (among others) in Biloxi. Don't know about Biloxi, but Tutelo uses ki or kiN. It's a bit strange, since it's found very seldom other than that. I can't make up my mind whether it's should be reconstructed as an article or as something broader. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed May 19 21:56:48 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan Hartley) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:56:48 -0500 Subject: comparative dictionaries In-Reply-To: <011701c43dca$6f7197a0$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: > I think it is waiting for volunteers at Colorado > to massage it into a Word for Windows file that can be easily edited. I should > have time later in the Summer to do clean-up but only if the file is ready for > it. I hope it happens! From BARudes at aol.com Wed May 19 23:19:23 2004 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:19:23 EDT Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: In addition to Tutelo and Daktoa, Catawba also shows a deitic kiN (Esaw dialect), kii (Saraw dialect). In the Catawba system, which is based on proximity, kiN/kii can be glossed as 'the, this (in the immediate vicinity)'. The evidence thus seem clear that *kiN must be reconstructed as a deictic element not only for PS, but for PSC as well. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu May 20 03:40:49 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:49 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> I have the notion that apertures tend to be =tHe. If so, that will >> explain 'mouth' and '(inner) ear', but checking it against other parts >> of the anatomy may be awkward. > Yes, I can see where it might. Maybe 'navel' would be fairly neutral. > 'Nostrils', unfortunately, are a set. I've just met with the speakers again. 'Navel' seems, indeed, to be =tHe, as in: dhe'ta tHe oNs^na'be ... moNdhiN'k[a] uz^i' 'my navel is dirty ... it's filled with earth' (and on to further speculation in English about growing beans and potatoes in it) I tried 'nostril', /pa'xdhu/. By this time I had them fairly conditioned with limb words to view =kHe as singular and =tHe as plural. (We're back to allowing =tHe for both eyes, by the way, and a single hand is now =kHe.) When asked directly, it was tentatively decided that a single nostril was =kHe, and both were =tHe. But when I asked how to say: "My nostril is plugged", I got: pa'xdhu tHe oNwoN'ske (oNwoN'ske = u-oN-ske < uske' = 'plugged') This could refer to both nostrils, but I suspect that =tHe is actually correct here for the singular. Attempts to elicit the positionals for the more netherly apertures were inconclusive. One speaker suggested =kHe on the philosophical grounds that a person only had one of the kind, while the other favored =dhoN. The expected =tHe was not offered, and neither were any illustrative sentences. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu May 20 16:02:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:02:41 -0600 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > dhe'ta tHe oNs^na'be ... moNdhiN'k[a] uz^i' > 'my navel is dirty ... it's filled with earth' > (and on to further speculation in English about growing > beans and potatoes in it) This was certainly always my father's contention in regard to dirt behind the ears when supervising bathing. I remember being assured that if I didn't wash better behind my ears I would soon find potatoes growing there. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri May 21 01:23:18 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 20:23:18 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I wish the Fletcher & LaFlesche body parts list had articles attached! With that segue, why don't I start posting the results I've been getting for these parts? A couple of months ago, I started a project of trying to establish the canonical positional for each of the main body parts listed in Fletcher & La Flesche for use with our class in using stative verbs. We ran out of time, the students graduated, and we lost our captive audience. Now I've gone through one short list of body parts twice with the speakers, once around March, and again in the last couple of weeks. The session last night was shadowed by the recent passing of a very prominent member of the Omaha community, who was related to both of our speakers and who had been a major resource and support for them. This may have caused the fatigue factor John mentioned to kick in a bit sooner than usual. ppa' as 'head', takes =dhoN as 'nose', takes =kHe (I believe John's Dorsey research indicated that 'nose' took =tHe. In both the March and the May session, our speakers, or at least the elder one, were definite that 'nose' took =kHe.) noNs^ki' the head excluding the face; the 'jug' as our younger speaker calls it, takes =dhoN, or possibly =kHe. nitta' the external ear, or earlobe. The word usually takes =tHe, but the set is usually referenced. My March notes indicate only =tHe for both of them. Last night, the speakers uncertainly suggested =kHe for a single earlobe. noNxi'de the inner ear in written tradition, or the whole ear according to our speakers. Perhaps the domain of noNxi'de is expanding at the expense of nitta', which is moving to the periphery. This term apparently always takes =tHe. iNde' the face proper, excluding the noNs^ki' and the ears. This seems to take =dhoN, though I have an optional =kHe listed in my March notes. ppe' the forehead, or 'bumper' as our younger speaker often calls it. This takes =kHe, as in: Ppe' kHe oNni'e. "My forehead hurts." iNs^ta' 'eye', takes =dhoN at least in the singular. Sets of eyes, especially of animals, may take =tHe. noNz^i'ha the mane of hair on the human head. I wasn't able to pin this down last night, but in March I was told that the positional was normally =dhoN, but that it could be =kHe if it was long and hanging. i' 'mouth', takes =tHe. I believe =tHe is probably the normal classifier for an aperture. hi' 'tooth' or 'teeth'. This normally takes kHe, in reference to the (linear) row of teeth. The positional for a single tooth is less clear. In March, I thought we had decided that a single tooth was =tHe, but last night after a philosophical struggle and a cartoon picture of myself with only one snaggle tooth, the speakers held out that even a single tooth was still =kHe. nu'de 'throat', or more generally 'neck'. (It seems that ppa'hi refers specifically to the back of the neck, or nape.) This seems to take =kHe. z^u'ga 'body', takes =kHe. moN'ge 'chest'. I have both =kHe and =tHe in my notes, possibly due to a difference between the speakers. The elder one seems to prefer =kHe. moNse' 'breast'. My March notes have =tHe (in contrast to moN'ze kHe), but last night we came down to =kHe after aesthetic objections to the alternate term 'udder' were heard. ni'xa 'belly'. In March it was =tHe, but last night we got =kHe. i(N)kHe'di 'shoulders'. According to our speakers, this is the whole contiguous area of the shoulders together with the upper back with the shoulder blades. Their conception of it vacillated between singular and plural. Both singular =kHe and set =tHe seem to be allowed. The traditional spelling of this term is iNk(H)ede, but our speakers seem to pronounce it ikHe'di. (I'm not sure if the k is aspirated or not.) noN'kka 'back'. According to our speakers, this is the back below the shoulder blades, or everything between the i(N)kHedi and the ni'de. This seems to take =kHe, though I have an alternate =tHe in my March notes. a' 'arm'. One arm is =kHe; both are =tHe. noNbe' 'hand'. In March, this took =tHe whether singular or plural, which agrees with Dorsey. Last night a single hand was =kHe, probably due to positional burnout. noNbe'hi 'finger'. This seems to take =kHe in the singular, or =tHe for the set. s^a'ge 'nail'. Uncertain. In March, it was =kHe for one and =tHe for the set. Last night, it was =tHe for one and =kHe for the line of nails. Then when I tried to mimic one of John's examples from Dorsey to see if I could get =ge by subordinating the s^a'ges to an intermediate segment, I got: noN'bes^age tHe, "set of nails on hands". Mental note: next time I meet with the speakers, move this to the top of the list and get a couple of sentences. ni'de 'buttocks'. This seems to be generally =kHe, as in: Ni'de kHe winoN'tHe koN'bdha. "I want to kick you in the butt", (spontaneously offered to me once by the elder speaker). There is also an expression for spanking someone, however, in which ni'de takes =dhoN. z^ega' the whole (mammalian) leg. This seems to take =kHe in the singular and =tHe for the set. z^i'be the leg, especially the front of the segment between knee and ankle. The speakers said last night that z^i'be ttoN'ga kHe meant "the bigger part of the thigh". My March notes have =kHe for one and =tHe for the set. s^inoN'oNde 'knee'. This seems to take =dhoN for one knee, and =tHe for the set. si' 'foot'. This seems to take =kHe for one foot, and =tHe for the set. wahi' 'bone'. A single bone generally takes =kHe. The speakers told me in March that wahi' tHe meant a whole skeleton. ha' the skin or hide of an animal. This seems to take =dhoN. xiNha' human skin. This also seems to take =dhoN. In general, I think =dhoN is used for things like skin, cloth or paper. noN'oNde 'heart'. This takes =dhoN. pa'xdhu 'nostril'. This normally takes =tHe, possibly in reference to the set. It was decided last night that =kHe was used in the singular. But when I asked for the sentence "My nostril is plugged", I was given: Pa'xdhu tHe oNwoN'ske. I suspect that tHe is used even in the singular, and that the =kHe derives from positional burnout. noNbe's^ka 'fist'. This seems to take =dhoN, as in: NoNbe's^ka dhoN oNttoN'ga, "My fist is big". i'ki 'chin'. This seems to take =tHe, as in: I'ki tHe oNhiN's^kube, "My chin is hairy". dhe'ta 'navel'. This seems to take =tHe, as in: Dhe'ta tHe oNs^na'be, "My navel is dirty". Anyway, that's what I have so far. There is a lot more uncertainty in this list than we would like, but I hope John will find it a good start! Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 06:15:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:15:38 -0600 Subject: OP dhaN-Gender Nouns Message-ID: Rory: That was a great list of body parts! I'm grateful to you and the speakers you worked with. That list represents a lot of work! I'm sorry to hear of the death in the family of the two women. I'm appending here the list of dhaN-nouns in the first 200 pages of Dorsey. It is more or less in agreement with the contemporary results, with perhaps a few more dhaN forms at the expense of khe forms. The logic for dhaN vs. khe is not always clear to me. Particular points of interest: - I ran across 'right ear' and it took =dhaN, so perhaps =the is a set form. Nevertheless, there are any cases of non-set or singular forms with sets, though perhaps not "all of" sets. - The word for one of the lower aperatures occurs with dhaN. - A number of forms appear here that have appeared in the earlier lists, including parts and containers that I thought might be =the and =khe class categories! a'bakku 'nape of the neck' dhe'ze 'tongue' dhie' 'side' (of body) he' 'horns (antlers) (of several elk)' hiN' '(body) hair, fur' hiNbe' 'moccasins' iN'be 'tails (of turkeys)' iNde' 'face' iN'z^e 'v at g1na' is^ta' 'eye(s)' maN'ghe 'sky (cloud?)' maNz^aN' 'land' naN'b udhi'xdha 'ring' naN'de 'heart' na(N)s^ki' 'head' na(N)z^i'ha 'hair (scalp)' ne'udhis^aN 'lake' ni'gha 'stomach' niN' '(body of) water' niN'de 'rump' nitta' is^nu'ga 'right ear' ppa' 'head' ppa' 'heads (of seven-headed monster)' ppa' 'heads (of several turkeys)' ppahe' 'hill' ppi' 'liver' s^aN'de 'scrotum' tta' 'jerked meat' ttanu'kka 'fresh meat' ttaN'waNgdhaN 'tribe (village)' ttea'zaNttasi 'kidneys' ttedhe'xe 'tongue(s) (of group of monster heads)' tteppi' 'liver' tti' 'circle of lodges' tti'=i, wasa'be 'Blackbear village' (modifier optional) tti'=i 'village (not of Blackbears); circle of lodges' tti'z^ebe 'door' u?u'de 'hole (gap to see through)' ubaN' 'fat around the kidneys' u'daN=xti 'a piece of something very good to eat' us^kaN' 'deed' ('the fact that ...' ?) uxdhu'xaha 'woman's bag' u'z^iha 'sack' waba'snaN 'shoulder (of rabbit)' wabdha'the=th e'gaN aNdha'?i 'what you gave me so I might eat' wadha'ge 'hat' wa'ga ma'=xaN=bi 'a slice cut off' wai'iN 'robe' wamiN' 'blood (clot?)' wa'nanase 'buffalo pound (?)' = '(where) they surrounded many times' was^iN' he'be 'piece of fat' xa'de 'grass' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 07:05:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:05:04 -0600 Subject: OP ge-Gender Nouns Message-ID: Not surprisingly these are all plurals and, to the extent that singulars occur, they are in other classes. da'daN p[h?]a 'bitter (some)things' dhis^pa's^pa=i 'fragments (of Rabbit's body)' maN'ze 'pieces of iron' naN'de ttiz^e'be=dh e'gaN 'walls and doors, too' naN'ppahi 'chokecherry bushes' ne'ghe 'kettles' siN'de '(a collection of severed) tails' tta' '(pieces of) meat' tt'e=ma ha 'hides of a group of buffalo' ttenaN'de 'scattered buffalo hearts' ttenaN'de was^iN 'buffalo heart fat' tti'=i 'lodges' umiN'z^e 'beds' usne' 'splits (or holes) in a hollow tree' uthaN' 'leggings (for one person)' wadha'the maNdhiN' p[h?]a 'bitter things he was going along eating' wai'iN 'robes' wathaN' 'goods' (wattaN' ?) waxa'ga ppai' 'sharp thorns' xa'de ppe'z^i p[h?]a 'bitter herbs and grasses' z^aNdhaN'ha 'scattered bits of bark' John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 07:27:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:27:48 -0600 Subject: OP Merged Noun Class List Message-ID: Here is the merged and sorted list of forms. I thought this might be easier to work with. Again this is from about the first 200 pages of the Dorsey 1890 text collection, so there are about 700 more pages, including the 1891 collection. This is only a sample. I have folded a few lines to bring headwords to the fore. This list does clearly show =the as a pluralizer of =khe and =dhaN forms, though as Ardis pointed out, with many body part nouns it is not necessary to indicate plurality, while, again, contexts also exist in which it might normally be indicated, at least for some nouns, when parts from several bodies are indicated, or when the completeness of the set for one body is emphasized. With some nouns plurality is normally marked, e.g., with 'ears'. There are =the forms that seem to be singular, too, e.g., uxpe' 'bowl' or tti' 'lodge'. Plurality may be involved in some cases where my gloss does not indicate it, through carelessness on my part - mainly where Dorsey's gloss neglected it. In addition, some forms may be indicated as plural falsely, based on English logic (see i'e 'word'). One should not assume that missing forms, like a'=the 'arms', do not exist. I have tried to disguise the spelling of body parts that might cause spam or rant etc., filters to be invoked, though, frankly, with this much "NetSiouan" notation I now pretty much assume that this post will be filtered out as spam if recipients don't take steps to prevent this. a'=khe 'arm' a'bakku=dhaN 'nape of the neck' a'dhiN=khe 'ridge' baghu'=khe 'peak (mountain)' dhe'ghegakku=the 'drum' dhe'ze=dhaN 'tongue' dhe'ze=the 'tongues' dhie'=dhaN 'side' (of body) dhie'=khe 'side, flank' dhis^pa's^pa=i=ge '(ripped off) fragments (of Rabbit's body)' ha'az^iNga=khe 'cord' (sic, spelling and number) ha'z^iNga=the 'cord' (sic, spelling and number) he'=dhaN 'horns (antlers) (of several elk)' he'=khe 'horn' he'be=the 'piece' hedhu'baz^aN=khe 'swing' hi'gaN=the 'myth' hiN'=dhaN '(body) hair, fur' hiNbe'=dhaN 'moccasins' hiNxpe'=khe 'fine feather' hu'=the 'voice' huhu'=khe 'fish' i'=the 'mouth' i'e=khe 'words' i'e=the 'speech, words' iN'?e=khe 'stone' iN'?e=the 'stone(s?)' iN'be=dhaN 'tails (of turkeys)' iNde'=dhaN 'face' iN'z^e=dhaN 'v at g1na' is^ta'=dhaN 'eye(s)' is^ta'ha=khe 'eyelid' kkaN'ha=khe 'border, edge' ma'=khe 'snow' ma'dhe=the 'winter' maN=khe 'arrow' maN'=the 'arrows' maNa'=the 'cliff' maNc^hu'=khe '(dead) grizzly bear' maN'de=khe 'bow' maNde'ppa=the 'head of bow' maN'ghe=dhaN 'sky (cloud?)' maN'ghe=khe 'sky' maN'hiNsi=the 'arrow heads' maNnaN's^ude=the 'dust from treading the ground' maN'sa=the 'arrow shafts' maNxpi'=khe 'cloud' maNz^aN'=dhaN 'land' maN'z^iha=khe 'quiver' maN'ze=ge 'pieces of iron' maN'zedhahe=khe 'bridle' maN'zewethiN=khe 'sword' ma's^aN=khe 'feather' mas^aN=the 'feathers (a collected bunch)' maxu'de=the 'ashes' na(N)s^ki'=dhaN 'head' na(N)z^i'ha=dhaN 'hair (scalp)' naN'b udhi'xdha=dhaN 'ring' naNbe'=the 'hand' naN'de=dhaN 'heart' naN'de=khe 'side of the tent' naN'ppahi=ge 'chokecherry bushes' ne'ghe=ge 'kettles' ne'udhis^aN=dhaN 'lake' ni(N)'gha=khe 'stomach' ni'as^iNga ppia'z^i=khe 'bad man (dead)' ni'as^iNga sighdha=i=khe 'person's trail (tracks)' ni'gha=dhaN 'stomach' nihaN'ga=the 'spring (of water)' niN'=dhaN '(body of) water' niN=khe 'water' niN'=the 'water' niN'de=dhaN 'rump' niN'de=khe 'cooked stuff' nini'ba=khe 'pipe' niN'ttaNga=khe 'large body of water' nitta' is^nu'ga=dhaN 'right ear' ni'tta=the 'ear' nu'ge=the 'summer' nu'ghe=khe 'ice' nu'z^iNga=khe 'boy (dead, lying)' p[h?]a=ge, da'daN 'bitter (some)things' p[h?]a=ge, wadha'the maNdhiN' 'bitter things he was going along eating' p[h?]a=ge, xa'de ppe'z^i 'bitter herbs and grasses' ppa'=the 'heads (a set of several from a decapitated monster)' ppa'=dhaN 'head' ppa'=dhaN 'heads (of seven-headed monster)' ppa'=dhaN 'heads (of several turkeys)' ppahe'=khe 'hill' ppahe'=dhaN 'hill' ppai'=the 'points' ppa'ze=the 'evenings' ppe'de=the 'fire' ppe'z^e=khe 'grass' ppi'=dhaN 'liver' ppiza'=khe 'sand' s^aN'de=dhaN 'scrotum' s^aN'ttaNga=khe '(dead) wolf' s^iN'gaz^iNga=khe 'infant (lying)' si'=khe 'foot' si'gdhe=khe 'footprint' sigdhe'=the 'trail (footprints?)' sihi'=khe 'foot' sihi'=the 'feet' siN'de=ge '(a collection of severed) tails' siN'de=khe 'tail' snede=a'xti=s^naN=khe 'what is usually really long' (foot) tta'=dhaN 'jerked meat' tta'=ge '(pieces of) meat' ttaN'de=khe 'ground' ttanu'kka=dhaN 'fresh meat' ttanu'kka=khe 'fresh meat' ttanu'kka=the 'fresh meat' ttaN'waNgdhaN=dhaN 'tribe (village)' tta'xti=khe '(dead) deer' tte'=ma ha=ge 'hides of a group of buffalo' tte'=khe 'buffalo meat' ttea'zaNttasi=dhaN 'kidneys' ttedhe'xe=dhaN 'tongue(s) (of group of monster heads)' ttemaN'ge=khe 'buffalo breast' ttenaN'de was^iN=ge 'buffalo heart fat' ttenaN'de=ge 'scattered buffalo hearts' tteppi'=dhaN 'liver' ttez^e'ga=khe 'buffalo thigh (upper leg)' tti'=dhaN 'circle of lodges' tti'=i=dhaN 'village (not of Blackbears); circle of lodges' tti'=i=dhaN, wasa'be 'Blackbear village' (modifier optional) tti'=i=ge 'lodges' tti'=khe 'lodge (thrown down, i.e., taken down)' tti'=khe 'lodges (collective)' tti=khe, xa'de 'grass lodge' tti'=the 'lodge' tti'ha a'kkibesaN=khe 'tentskin fold' tti'z^ebe, ttiz^e'be=the 'door' ttiz^e'be=dh e'gaN=ge, naN'de 'walls and doors, too' tti'z^ebe=dhaN 'door' u'?e=khe 'field' u?u'de=dhaN 'hole (gap to see through)' u?u'de=the 'hole' ubaN'=dhaN 'fat around the kidneys' uc^hi'z^e=khe 'thicket' u'daN=xti=dhaN 'a piece of something very good to eat' u'haN=the 'cooking' uhaN'ge=khe 'beginning, end (margin)' umaN'(?)e=the 'provisions' umiN'z^e=ge 'beds' umiN'z^e=khe 'couch, bed' umiN'z^e=the 'couch, bed' u's?u=khe 'slice' u's?u=the 'slices' us^kaN'=dhaN 'deed' ('the fact that ...' ?) u's^kaN=khe 'deed' (u)s^kaN'=the 'deed' u's^kaN=the 'deed(s?)' usne'=ge 'splits (or holes) in a hollow tree' uthaN'=ge 'leggings (for one person)' uxdhu'xa=khe 'deep hollow' uxdhu'xaha=dhaN 'woman's bag' uxpe' z^iNga=khe 'small bowl' uxpe'=the 'bowl' u'z^iha=dhaN 'sack' u'z^iha=khe 'bag' wa?aN'=the 'song' wa?iN'=the 'pack' wa?u'=khe 'woman (lying, tied by foot)' waba'snaN=dhaN 'shoulder (of rabbit)' wabdha'the=th e'gaN aNdha'?i 'what you gave me so I might eat' wac^hi's^ka=khe 'creek' wadha'ge=dhaN 'hat' wa'dhaha=the 'clothing' wadhatha=i=the 'what they ate (a piece)' wadha'the=khe 'food' wa'ga ma'=xaN=bi=dhaN 'a slice cut off' wahi'=khe 'bone' wahu'ttaNdhiN=khe 'gun' wai'iN=dhaN 'robe' wai'iN=ge 'robes' wakkaN'da(gi)=khe '(dead) water deity' wakku'=khe 'awl' wamiN'=dhaN 'blood (clot?)' wa'nanase=dhaN 'buffalo pound (?)' '(where) they surrounded many times' wappe'=khe 'weapon' was^iN' he'be=dhaN 'piece of fat' was^iN'=the 'fat' wathaN=ge 'goods' (wattaN?) waxa'ga ppai'=ge 'sharp thorns' we's?a=khe 'snake' xa'de=dhaN 'grass' xdhabe'=khe 'tree' (presumably fallen) xdhabe'=the 'tree' z^aN'=khe 'wood' z^aN'=the 'tree' z^aNdhaN'ha=ge 'scattered bits of bark' z^aNxdhu'?a=the 'hollow tree' z^aN'z^iNga=khe 'stick' z^e'=khe 'p3n1s' z^u'ga=khe 'body' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 21 07:56:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:56:01 -0600 Subject: *ki (Re: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/) In-Reply-To: <018001c43de9$fb875080$06b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Don't know about Biloxi, but Tutelo uses ki or kiN. It's a bit strange, > since it's found very seldom other than that. I can't make up my mind > whether it's should be reconstructed as an article or as something > broader. I believe I was misrecollecting the Tutelo forms as Biloxi in this case. My error! I also wonder about -gi in Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi, though that's an oddball form. I'd assume it would have to be a loan of sorts, rather than a retention. I think I once noticed another *-ki form, probably in Osage (which also has wahkoNtaki), but I can't relocate it. From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 21 14:00:37 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:00:37 -0500 Subject: OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd) Message-ID: This would really be helpful to me, as I (along with Carolyn Quintero, Justin McBride, Kathy Shea and others) would have something to compare across languages. I'm still very curious to discover the extent to which these (and other) nouns are assigned a non-changing class, or, alternatively, can be used with different articles depending on position. 'Tree/log', 'head/nose', 'house/camp-circle' already suggested a certain amount of ossification in the system, and this makes learning the proper "gender" for many nouns a matter of priority. Bob > John wrote: > > I wish the Fletcher & LaFlesche body parts list had articles attached! Rory wrote: > With that segue, why don't I start posting the results > I've been getting for these parts? A couple of months > ago, I started a project of trying to establish the > canonical positional for each of the main body parts > listed in Fletcher & La Flesche for use with our class > in using stative verbs. From rankin at ku.edu Fri May 21 14:07:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:07:44 -0500 Subject: *ki Message-ID: I think Blair's comment on Catawban pretty much clinches the argument, especially since it shows the same nasal/non-nasal allomorphs as Dakotan. There definitely is a deictic {ki} in Dhegiha -- in fact, in that very term, dheGIha -- and it recurs in other deictic clusters. My preferred reconstruction would be as a broader deictic of some kind rather than as a definite article. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > I believe I was misrecollecting the Tutelo forms as Biloxi in this case. > My error! I bet if we scour the Biloxi texts, it'll turn up in one form or another. > I also wonder about -gi in Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi, though that's an > oddball form. I'd assume it would have to be a loan of sorts, rather than > a retention. I think I once noticed another *-ki form, probably in Osage > (which also has wahkoNtaki), but I can't relocate it. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat May 22 06:24:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 00:24:24 -0600 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## In-Reply-To: <008001c43f3d$0f9451f0$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 May 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I think Blair's comment on Catawban pretty much clinches the argument, > especially since it shows the same nasal/non-nasal allomorphs as > Dakotan. There are at least three morphemes that show final i ~ iN in Dakotan. It is intersting to see this alternation so far afield. Besides =ki (Teton and/or modern?) and =kiN (Santee and/or old?), I have run into: PMV =xti(N) 'real, very' Te ec^he'=xc^i just so' Sa ec^he'=xc^iN ~ ec^he'=xtiN 'just so' (In Da more or less fossilized where it occurs, I think.) OP =xti ~ =xc^i IO =xj^i Wi =xj^iN PMV =s^i(N) adversative Te/Sa =s^ ADV; =s^=niN NEG As/St =s^iN NEG OP =z^i NEG Wi =z^i 'at least' > There definitely is a deictic {ki} in Dhegiha -- in fact, in that very > term, dheGIha -- and it recurs in other deictic clusters. I've never been quite sure what to make of this stem. Dorsey gives a set of cognate or comparable forms along the lines of Dhegiha in his Phonology of Five Siouan Languages. Unfortunately I haven't a clue which of 10+ boxes this xerox is in. A few of the forms are in other sources, quoted from here, perhaps. OP dhe'giha 'those here, the people of this place, those on our side (in a game)' Ks yega 'right here', yega'ha 'hither; those here, the people of this land' Os ??? Qu deka' 'first (people)' IO Ji'were 'Otoe'. I seem to recall that this has a variant jegiwere. Unfortunately these forms aren't regularly cognate and seem to be merely forms Dorsey had collected for 'the ones here', not necessarily parallel in morphology. All the forms clearly begin with the proxmimal demonstrative (OP dhe, Ks ye, Os dhe, Qu de, IO j^e). On this basis the Ks form may be parallel with the remote demonstrative forms gago 'enough', gago'ha 'over that way, over yonder'. These seem to involve *ka + *ko, where *ko matches OP gu. This gu takes a bit of explaining, especially since I don't really understand it ... OP has as its principle demonstratives dhe 'this', s^e 'that (near you)', ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. These parallel Teton le, he, ka, except that whereas he is the more common of the distal demonstratives in Teton, ga may be a bit less marked than s^e in OP, though both are common enough. Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, ga are du, s^u, gu. These occur with motion verbs as prefixes, especially s^u, with the gloss 'toward you'. You also get forms like du'=akha 'this one' or du'diha 'this way, hither', or gu'diha 'that way, yonder' in which =di is a locative postposition and =ha is perhaps another. It occurs in forms with demonstratives and numbers and a few other things prefixed. These forms have readings like '(to/from) X directions, in X places'. Maybe it's a multiplicative? I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" hypothesis. You also find locatives of the form dhe=dhu, s^e=dhu and ga=dhu. Sometimes I wonder if the du, etc., forms are old contractions of dhe=dhu, etc. However, one thing you don't seem to find is combinations of the first series of demonstratives with the second. No *dhedu (or *dedu) or *s^es^u or *gagu. However, I think Osage has a locative suffix =ki, and there is certainly a locative suffix =gi in Winnebago and I think ditto in IO. So, perhaps yega and gago are reformulated from *yegi and *gagi In that case, I suspect Ks yegaha and gagoha are from *yegiha and *gagiha. You also find something similar with doda, dodaha 'this way, etc.' and goda, godaha 'yonder; that way', which ought to match OP dudi, dudiha and gudi, gudiha. In all of these the second vowel has /i/ replaced with /a/ (or /o/ after ga-). In OP the form dhegiha seems to be something of a relict. It doesn't occur in the Dorsey texts and neither does *dhegi, or *gagi or *gagiha or any -gi locative of any sort, as far as I am aware, except perhaps egiha, which is variously rendered as 'headlong; into, through, under the surface'. The IO forms involve j^e 'this', sometimes with =gi LOC, and then we-re. IO /we/ seems to parallel OP /he/ 'lying', as in k-he 'the lying', or ihe=dhe 'lay, place lying' and 'suddenly' auxiliaries like thi=he 'to approach suddenly' which are often a sequence of a motion verb plus a positional root. The function of IO -re here might be adverbial, but, in any event, the IO forms differ from the Dhegiha ones in adding a positional fomation of some sort in lieu of the Dhegiha locative suffix =ha. In fact, Bob lists Ks forms like yegakhaN 'those here, the people of this land' alongside yegaha. Insofar as I can pierce the impenetrable fog of Kawness here, I take this to be an analog of (unattested) OP *dhe=gi=thaN or *dhe=gi 'here' + thaN 'the (animate, standing)'. There's also ye'gaya 'here, in this place' in which the -ya might be analogous to the IO -re. I could be very wrong here, because for a student of OP to make sense of Kaw is somewhat like using an American guide in the Scottish outback. I once heard a funny story about some French folks and an American friend who attempted this. Before long the French couple were convinced that the American did not speak the English, and while the American thought that he did, he was certain that the Scotts did not. > My preferred reconstruction would be as a broader deictic of some kind > rather than as a definite article. For the present, at least, I prefer the -gi in Dhe-gi-ha as a locative (in Missisippi Valley), over a braide deictic. However, it is easy to get from demonstrative to locative and back, and, as Wes Jones has demonstrated in several contexts, there is considerable evidence that Siouan does this a lot. It would be possible for the MV source of Dakotan ki(N) to be either morphologically independent of the *=ki locative in Mississippi Valley or the same, and it would certainly be possible for these one or two forms in MV to derive from a single historical source as the Tutelo and Catawba deictic elements. Wes's term was "morphological constellation." Anyway, my quibble is no more than a quibble and in no way a disagreement in principle. Broadly speaking I agreee with Blair and Bob. From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sat May 22 17:00:33 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:00:33 -0700 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was interested to see the PMV reconstruction =xti(N), because this is one of those intriguing resemblances between Siouan and Iroquoian, where in the latter there's an intensifier with the form =hji. (No nasalization, but Iroquoian doesn't have a nasalized I.) I guess you'd call it fossilized too, in the sense that it only occurs with a few established forms. Particularly intriguing is the combination -keN-hji, which is an Iroquoian stem meaning "old" as applied to a human. How widespread in Siouan is -kaN- "old"? Wally > There are at least three morphemes that show final i ~ iN in Dakotan. It > is intersting to see this alternation so far afield. Besides =ki (Teton > and/or modern?) and =kiN (Santee and/or old?), I have run into: > > PMV =xti(N) 'real, very' > > Te ec^he'=xc^i just so' > Sa ec^he'=xc^iN ~ ec^he'=xtiN 'just so' > (In Da more or less fossilized where it occurs, I think.) > > OP =xti ~ =xc^i > > IO =xj^i > > Wi =xj^iN From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 23 07:11:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 01:11:00 -0600 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian In-Reply-To: <2706359.1085220033@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > I was interested to see the PMV reconstruction =xti(N), because this is one > of those intriguing resemblances between Siouan and Iroquoian, where in the > latter there's an intensifier with the form =hji. (No nasalization, but > Iroquoian doesn't have a nasalized I.) I guess you'd call it fossilized > too, in the sense that it only occurs with a few established forms. > Particularly intriguing is the combination -keN-hji, which is an Iroquoian > stem meaning "old" as applied to a human. How widespread in Siouan is -kaN- > "old"? I can't think of anything like kaN 'old' in an Omaha-Ponca context, and I didn't find anything like this under 'old' or 'mature' in the CSD files. Maybe Bob knows of something? Ther eis the *hkaN 'holy, sacred' root, which might transfer via the concept of veneration. One possibility with =xti is that the first part of it is comparable to that *=s^i(N) adversative morpheme. A number of intensifiers and negatives and so on start with =s^... or =x... However, I don't think that the enclitics are especially well understood in comparative terms. Reflexes of *=xti occur in Mississippi Valley and Southeastern. It's pretty productive in Dhegiha, where it tends to occur slmost automatically with some kinds of adverbs (in Omaha-Ponca) and is used in various other ways, too. I do have the impression that it is restricted in use in Dakotan. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun May 23 07:13:26 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 01:13:26 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam at Colorado. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Sun May 23 14:02:34 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:02:34 +0100 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. WibdhahaN Anthony >>> John.Koontz at colorado.edu 23/05/2004 08:13:26 >>> Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam at Colorado. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 23 17:05:18 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:05:18 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian Message-ID: Well, *-xti is clearly proto-Siouan. I don't have /kan/ or anything similar for 'old' (but, of course, our coverage is far from exhaustive). Nasalization is used for further intensification in both Siouan and Muskogean sporadically. Perhaps other Eastern language families as well. John's given Siouan examples. In Muskogean you have things like Creek /cotki/ 'little', /cotkosi/ 'tiny', where /-osi/ is a diminutive ending, and then, /cooNtkosi/ 'itsy bitsy' with extra high pitch (not to be confused with the nasal aspectual grade that signals continuative). We have a few other cognate sets in Siouan with "intrusive" nasalization including the verb 'give'. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:11 AM Subject: Re: Siouan and Iroquoian > On Sat, 22 May 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > > I was interested to see the PMV reconstruction =xti(N), because this is one > > of those intriguing resemblances between Siouan and Iroquoian, where in the > > latter there's an intensifier with the form =hji. (No nasalization, but > > Iroquoian doesn't have a nasalized I.) I guess you'd call it fossilized > > too, in the sense that it only occurs with a few established forms. > > Particularly intriguing is the combination -keN-hji, which is an Iroquoian > > stem meaning "old" as applied to a human. How widespread in Siouan is -kaN- > > "old"? > > I can't think of anything like kaN 'old' in an Omaha-Ponca context, and I > didn't find anything like this under 'old' or 'mature' in the CSD files. > Maybe Bob knows of something? Ther eis the *hkaN 'holy, sacred' root, > which might transfer via the concept of veneration. > > One possibility with =xti is that the first part of it is comparable to > that *=s^i(N) adversative morpheme. A number of intensifiers and > negatives and so on start with =s^... or =x... However, I don't think > that the enclitics are especially well understood in comparative terms. > Reflexes of *=xti occur in Mississippi Valley and Southeastern. It's > pretty productive in Dhegiha, where it tends to occur slmost automatically > with some kinds of adverbs (in Omaha-Ponca) and is used in various other > ways, too. I do have the impression that it is restricted in use in > Dakotan. > > From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 23 17:05:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:05:56 -0500 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: Interesting -- it made it thru here OK. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:13 AM Subject: Combined OP Article List > Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from > the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam > at Colorado. > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz > From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sun May 23 17:19:02 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:19:02 -0700 Subject: Old In-Reply-To: <005301c440e8$32cd6b50$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: What am I to make of the fact that Buechel has an entry "old" that includes akaN; kaNhi "live to be old"; okaN "old age"; okaNka "at old age, at the last"? Curiously, Williamson has, at the end of the entry "old", kaN "an old coat". I must be missing something here. --Wally From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 23 22:45:44 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:45:44 -0500 Subject: Old Message-ID: It may just be an etymon that we haven't picked up on. Much (most?) of Buechel is cribbed word for word from Riggs, and Williamson is the reverse for Riggs. The term must exist. I'll check Quapaw and Kaw dictionaries and see if I can find anything. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wallace Chafe" To: Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:19 PM Subject: Old > What am I to make of the fact that Buechel has an entry "old" that includes > akaN; kaNhi "live to be old"; okaN "old age"; okaNka "at old age, at the > last"? Curiously, Williamson has, at the end of the entry "old", kaN "an > old coat". I must be missing something here. > --Wally > > From mary.marino at usask.ca Mon May 24 04:56:40 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:56:40 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It didn't reach me, but may have been caught in the spam filter. I don't go through it because there seem to be 50-100 items every day. Mary At 01:13 AM 5/23/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Warning: I posted a combined list of OP inanimate nouns and articles from >the first 100 pages of Dorsey, sorted by noun. It was classified as spam >at Colorado. > >John E. Koontz >http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon May 24 15:06:14 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:06:14 -0500 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > This gu takes a bit of explaining, especially since I don't really > understand it ... OP has as its principle demonstratives dhe 'this', s^e > 'that (near you)', ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. I think we might want to double check that interpretation of ga. I believe it was a year ago last spring that I was teaching these to our class with this interpretation when the speakers corrected me at one of our evening meetings. According to them, the term for 'yonder' is actually s^ehi'. The ga demonstrative, they say, actually means 'right there, at that exact spot'. How close it is to speaker or listener doesn't matter. So I had to go back iNde' oNz^i'de to the class with this new doctrine and bear the slings and arrows of those who would have preferred to be taught right the first time. I think this interpretation may make better sense with the Dorsey texts too. There is a section in Two Face and the Twin Brothers in which the elder brother has climbed a tree to capture a nest full of Thunderbird chicks. Before he seizes each one he addresses it to ask its name: "And ga'niNkHe's^e, what is YOUR name?" The ga'niNkHe's^e means 'YOU there, the one sitting right there'. It certainly doesn't mean 'yonder' in this context. > These parallel Teton le, he, ka, except that whereas he is the more common > of the distal demonstratives in Teton, ga may be a bit less marked than > s^e in OP, though both are common enough. Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, > ga are du, s^u, gu. That's interesting! I hadn't fully made this connection! > I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu > YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" > hypothesis. This is also an interesting idea! I had always wondered about that gu in a'gudi. But if gu parallels ga, and if ga actually has the sense of 'right there', then it is more transparent than "Where away?". Another form of 'Where?' is awa'ta, which is generally used with verbs of motion in the sense of 'what direction is someone going'. A'gudi is used for asking about a precise location. So perhaps a-gu-di parses as INTERROGATIVE + PRECISE_SPOT + LOC, which is exactly what it means. Rory From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Mon May 24 15:22:14 2004 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:22:14 -0500 Subject: conference details Message-ID: Just a few little practicalities for those of you attending the Siouan and Caddoan conference: 1. Parking. Parking on campus will be free, but you need a guest permit. I've got a bunch of these and would be happy to send one to anyone who gives me their mailing address. (Alternatively you can just pick one up when you get here. I'll leave some at the motel and dorm front desks, and will have some in the meeting room.) The lot where this permit allows you to park is across campus from the dorm and conference building. Not too far -- about 2 or 3 city blocks -- but if walking this far is going to be a big problem for anyone, let me know. 2. Maps/locations I've also got some campus maps -- like the permits, I could send them out if you want one ahead of time. You can also find a campus map on the web -- http://www.wsc.edu/about_campus/map/front.htm "The Dorm" is Neihardt Hall (named after WSC alumnus John G. Neihardt, of "Black Elk Speaks" fame). It's the first building on the left as you turn in at the main entrance to the college (turning into J.G.Lewis Drive off Main St). Paper sessions will be in Humanities Building (3rd building on the right as you come in that same entrance), room 319. For early arrivals ... pre-conference extremely informal party is at 915 Logan St. (1 block south of campus. Logan is parallel to Main St., one block east.) 375-4316. Thursday evening 7:00 on. If you show up before 7 we'll put you to work chopping veggies or something; feel free. 3. Housing Just a nudge... make your reservations soon if you haven't done so. The motel block is held for us only till the 27th. I don't know of any big events that should fill up the motels, but in a 3-motel town it doesn't take much. One wedding could do it. The dorms also fill up with summer sports camps and such... Forgive me, I can't help myself. I ran across this in a novel: "When April with its sweet showers has pierced the drought of March to the root, and bathed every vein of earth with that liquid by whose power the flowers are engendered; when the zephyr, too, with its dulcet breath, has breathed life into the tender new shoots [...], then, as the poet Geoffrey Chaucer observed many years ago, folk long to go on pilgrimages. Only, these days, professional people call them conferences. The modern conference resembles the pilgrimage of medieval Christendom in that it allows the participants to indulge themselves in all the pleasures and diversions of travel while appearing to be austerely bent on self-improvement. To be sure, there are certain penitential exercises to be performed -- the presentation of a paper, perhaps, and certainly listening to the papers of others. But with this excuse you journey to new and interesting places, meet new and interesting people, and form new and interesting relationships with them [...] eat, drink and make merry in their company every evening; and yet, at the end of it all, return home with an enhanced reputation for seriousness of mind. " A free WSC pencil to anyone who can identify the author. (Of course, Siouanists ARE serious-minded, and the "pleasures and diversions" to be had in Wayne will consist mostly of listening to each others' papers... :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 24 16:23:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:23:45 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040523225529.019ff320@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > It didn't reach me, but may have been caught in the spam filter. I don't > go through it because there seem to be 50-100 items every day. Interested parties who missed this (or the constituent lists) can find them in the LinguistList Archives. The merged list is at http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0405&L=siouan&D=1&F=&S=&P=11321 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 24 16:17:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:17:49 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 May 2004, Anthony Grant wrote: > John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. Is it spam, or, as the case may be, vegamite (sp?) in Ormskirk? From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Mon May 24 16:35:10 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:35:10 +0100 Subject: Combined OP Article List Message-ID: It didn't come through as spam (the subject, you may know, of an infamous Monty Python sketch). Vegemite is an exclusively Australian abomination, I'm glad to say,m though not unlike British Marmite (another yeast extract product though darker than vegemite). The nearest thing to spam in the US is pork luncheon meat; a US cookbook for disabled people explained a good way of getting that out of its tin/can, finishing the description of the technique with the line 'now all you have to do is bring yourself to eat the stuff!'. I suspect that the creation of spam (spiced ham) was inspired by Arctic and Subartic British experience with pemmican and maybe with Hudson Valley Dutch head cheese. Anthony Anthony >>> John.Koontz at colorado.edu 24/05/2004 17:17:49 >>> On Sun, 23 May 2004, Anthony Grant wrote: > John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. Is it spam, or, as the case may be, vegamite (sp?) in Ormskirk? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon May 24 17:10:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:10:29 -0600 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. > > I think we might want to double check that interpretation of ga. I > believe it was a year ago last spring that I was teaching these to our > class with this interpretation when the speakers corrected me at one of > our evening meetings. According to them, the term for 'yonder' is > actually s^ehi'. Very interesting. I believe that's the gloss Dorsey uses, too! I'd always wondered why (duh). Of course, it's an interesting question what yonder means, too. It isn't really part of my colloquial vocabulary. For me it's entirely learned. I dojn't know how it works in Nebraska. I was using it informally for 'yon'. I usually think of 'yonder' as 'toward yon' in formal terms, but, of course, most people who use it seem to make it part of the series here/there/yonder and/or this/that/yonder. I take it might mean (opposite of ga) 'at a vague distant location'? I remember that the first Omaha man I worked with came up with ga to for the prompt 'this', something that had always puzzled me. I think Dorsey explains the -hi element in demonstratives as meaning something like "a bit more than X." It's in a footnote early on in the texts. I assume it's from hi 'arrive there'. > The ga demonstrative, they say, actually means 'right there, at that > exact spot'. How close it is to speaker or listener doesn't matter. > ... > > I think this interpretation may make better sense with the Dorsey texts > too. There is a section in Two Face and the Twin Brothers in which the > elder brother has climbed a tree to capture a nest full of Thunderbird > chicks. Before he seizes each one he addresses it to ask its name: "And > ga'niNkHe's^e, what is YOUR name?" The ga'niNkHe's^e means 'YOU there, > the one sitting right there'. It certainly doesn't mean 'yonder' in > this context. Good example! > > Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, ga are du, s^u, gu. > > That's interesting! I hadn't fully made this connection! Well, at least it's a morphological parallel. I'm not so sure it's a semantic one, now. Gu- does seem to mean 'further away'. Gu'=di ga=hau (the imperative of gu'=di) means something like 'Go away!'. The initials of dhe and du are not comparable, suggesting *re and *to, but notice that Winnebago and IO j^ee suggest *te and Dakotan le, etc., suggest *Re, so *re ~ *Re ~ *te is a very irregular set to begin with. I assume it's a valid comparison in spite of this, and that the irregularity has to do with occurring syntactically in a mix of strong and weak phonological positions. > > I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu > > YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" > > hypothesis. > > This is also an interesting idea! I had always wondered about that > gu in a'gudi. But if gu parallels ga, and if ga actually has the > sense of 'right there', then it is more transparent than "Where away?". > Another form of 'Where?' is awa'ta, which is generally used with verbs > of motion in the sense of 'what direction is someone going'. A'gudi is > used for asking about a precise location. So perhaps a-gu-di parses as > INTERROGATIVE + PRECISE_SPOT + LOC, which is exactly what it means. I understand archaic naval "where away" to mean "in which direction away from where we are now," but my understanding of the etymology of a'gudi is merely generically similar to that, along the lines of "at what spot that I am pretty sure isn't the spot right here where we are now." In other words, without any notion of directionality, a notion which seems to be associated secondarily in demonstratives with a notion of vagueness. So, in regard to your hypothesis, it might mean 'at what precise spot', with gu conveying the notion of precision, but I'm not sure gu- fits into the precise spot demonstrative category. The awa- demonstrative root seems to be used in interrogatives having to do with choices among several logical possibilities. From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Mon May 24 17:45:55 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:45:55 +0100 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## Message-ID: John: In my idolect at least, yonder is 'way over there', the distal 'that' as opposed to the proximal one. Anthony >>> John.Koontz at colorado.edu 24/05/2004 18:10:29 >>> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > > ga 'that (yonder, not near you, maybe out of sight)'. > > I think we might want to double check that interpretation of ga. I > believe it was a year ago last spring that I was teaching these to our > class with this interpretation when the speakers corrected me at one of > our evening meetings. According to them, the term for 'yonder' is > actually s^ehi'. Very interesting. I believe that's the gloss Dorsey uses, too! I'd always wondered why (duh). Of course, it's an interesting question what yonder means, too. It isn't really part of my colloquial vocabulary. For me it's entirely learned. I dojn't know how it works in Nebraska. I was using it informally for 'yon'. I usually think of 'yonder' as 'toward yon' in formal terms, but, of course, most people who use it seem to make it part of the series here/there/yonder and/or this/that/yonder. I take it might mean (opposite of ga) 'at a vague distant location'? I remember that the first Omaha man I worked with came up with ga to for the prompt 'this', something that had always puzzled me. I think Dorsey explains the -hi element in demonstratives as meaning something like "a bit more than X." It's in a footnote early on in the texts. I assume it's from hi 'arrive there'. > The ga demonstrative, they say, actually means 'right there, at that > exact spot'. How close it is to speaker or listener doesn't matter. > ... > > I think this interpretation may make better sense with the Dorsey texts > too. There is a section in Two Face and the Twin Brothers in which the > elder brother has climbed a tree to capture a nest full of Thunderbird > chicks. Before he seizes each one he addresses it to ask its name: "And > ga'niNkHe's^e, what is YOUR name?" The ga'niNkHe's^e means 'YOU there, > the one sitting right there'. It certainly doesn't mean 'yonder' in > this context. Good example! > > Anyway, paralleling dhe, s^e, ga are du, s^u, gu. > > That's interesting! I hadn't fully made this connection! Well, at least it's a morphological parallel. I'm not so sure it's a semantic one, now. Gu- does seem to mean 'further away'. Gu'=di ga=hau (the imperative of gu'=di) means something like 'Go away!'. The initials of dhe and du are not comparable, suggesting *re and *to, but notice that Winnebago and IO j^ee suggest *te and Dakotan le, etc., suggest *Re, so *re ~ *Re ~ *te is a very irregular set to begin with. I assume it's a valid comparison in spite of this, and that the irregularity has to do with occurring syntactically in a mix of strong and weak phonological positions. > > I think the OP 'where' form agudi is essentially a- INTERROGATIVE + gu > > YONDER + di LOC, so there's another -gu. I call this the "Where Away?" > > hypothesis. > > This is also an interesting idea! I had always wondered about that > gu in a'gudi. But if gu parallels ga, and if ga actually has the > sense of 'right there', then it is more transparent than "Where away?". > Another form of 'Where?' is awa'ta, which is generally used with verbs > of motion in the sense of 'what direction is someone going'. A'gudi is > used for asking about a precise location. So perhaps a-gu-di parses as > INTERROGATIVE + PRECISE_SPOT + LOC, which is exactly what it means. I understand archaic naval "where away" to mean "in which direction away from where we are now," but my understanding of the etymology of a'gudi is merely generically similar to that, along the lines of "at what spot that I am pretty sure isn't the spot right here where we are now." In other words, without any notion of directionality, a notion which seems to be associated secondarily in demonstratives with a notion of vagueness. So, in regard to your hypothesis, it might mean 'at what precise spot', with gu conveying the notion of precision, but I'm not sure gu- fits into the precise spot demonstrative category. The awa- demonstrative root seems to be used in interrogatives having to do with choices among several logical possibilities. From rankin at ku.edu Mon May 24 18:04:52 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:04:52 -0500 Subject: *ki and -i(N)## Message-ID: Mrs. Rowe used to tell kids in her yard "gooda moyiN" and translate it 'go 'way over yonder', meaning "get out of here". The /go:/ is what Omaha gu "really" is, of course. The tripartite English system should be something like (for those us us who still have a 3-way contrast): Here, there, yonder This, that, yon Now, then, (yore ?) ...for spatial, plain and temporal deictics respectively. Bob > In my idolect at least, yonder is 'way over there', the distal 'that' as opposed to the proximal one. Anthony From mary.marino at usask.ca Mon May 24 22:06:37 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:06:37 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Vegemite is the Australian version of Marmite - nothing to do with artificial meat. Mary At 10:17 AM 5/24/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Sun, 23 May 2004, Anthony Grant wrote: > > John: Fear not, it reached Ormskirk. > >Is it spam, or, as the case may be, vegamite (sp?) in Ormskirk? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 25 01:04:46 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 19:04:46 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040524160548.01a1cb90@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > Vegemite is the Australian version of Marmite - nothing to do with > artificial meat. Ah, yes, but marmite is an artificial or heavily processed and somewhat dubious food product, in that respect analogous to or conceptually resembling spam. I couldn't remember the term marmite until I had sent the message, but I remembered vegemite from the Men at Work song. (M at W were from New Zealand, I believe.) Marmite is a little rare in my neck of the woods. Now, since spam for me is a product of American ingenuity (not unlike individually wrapped slices of plastic-like cheese or, for that matter, 2x4s of velveeta), I thought that perhaps the analogous marmite, which I associate with the British, might be employed as the analogous British term for junk email. (I am definitely smiling or at least grimmacing as I write this, and I do apologize for the obscure and labored analogy.) Perhaps the analogy was weak. I think nobody admits to liking spam, but the British are said to take a perverse pride in marmite. This is not unlike the American attitude toward artificial cheese products as, for example, a hallowed ingredient in cheeseburgers or Philly cheesesteaks and a various dips. There are those who consider real cheese in these dishes to be both revolting and unnatural. Admission: It has been some years, but I have, in my childhood, eaten and like both spam and a homemade concoction called scrapple. From mary.marino at usask.ca Tue May 25 05:39:00 2004 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Mary Marino) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:39:00 -0600 Subject: Combined OP Article List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I will admit without hesitation that, though I am not British, I like Marmite (spread thin on hot buttered toast) - I think we should drop the subject. Mary At 07:04 PM 5/24/2004 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 24 May 2004, Mary Marino wrote: > > Vegemite is the Australian version of Marmite - nothing to do with > > artificial meat. > >Ah, yes, but marmite is an artificial or heavily processed and somewhat >dubious food product, in that respect analogous to or conceptually >resembling spam. I couldn't remember the term marmite until I had sent >the message, but I remembered vegemite from the Men at Work song. (M at W >were from New Zealand, I believe.) Marmite is a little rare in my neck of >the woods. > >Now, since spam for me is a product of American ingenuity (not unlike >individually wrapped slices of plastic-like cheese or, for that matter, >2x4s of velveeta), I thought that perhaps the analogous marmite, which I >associate with the British, might be employed as the analogous British >term for junk email. (I am definitely smiling or at least grimmacing as I >write this, and I do apologize for the obscure and labored analogy.) > >Perhaps the analogy was weak. I think nobody admits to liking spam, but >the British are said to take a perverse pride in marmite. This is not >unlike the American attitude toward artificial cheese products as, for >example, a hallowed ingredient in cheeseburgers or Philly cheesesteaks and >a various dips. There are those who consider real cheese in these dishes >to be both revolting and unnatural. > >Admission: It has been some years, but I have, in my childhood, eaten and >like both spam and a homemade concoction called scrapple. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue May 25 15:05:00 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:05:00 -0600 Subject: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote Message-ID: An interesting footnote appears in Dorsey 1890 on p. 18. ==== [In regard to] ppa[']he s^e[']hidhaN[']di, [p.] 15, [line 3]: Let A denote the place of the speaker; B, ppahe s^ekhe, that visible long hill, a short distance off; b, ppahe s^edhaN, that visible curvilinear hill, a short distance off; C, ppahe s^ehikhe, that visible long hill, reaching a point further away; c, ppahe s^ehidhaN, ditto, if curvilinear; D, ppahe s^ehidhekhe, that visible long hill, extending beyond ppahe s^ekhe, and ppahe s^ehikhe; d, ppahe s^ehidhedhaN, that visible curvilinear hill, extending beyond ppahe s^edhaN and ppahe s^ehidhaN. [I've adapted the prthography. There follows a diagram in which X represents an oblong box orthogonal to the line of sight, Y an oblong box extending along the line of sight, and Z a circle. JEK] A ... BX ... CX ... DX; A ... BY ... CY ... DY; A ... bZ ... cZ ... dZ. ==== The ... represents a line of dashes labelled "line of sight." I take the reiteration of two lines with orthogonal and parallel oblongs to mean that the length of the hill could be aligned in any way with respect to the line of sight. Basically he's saying that it was explained to him that s^e' refers to something a short distance off, but visible, usually glossed by him (and therefore probably by his consultants) as 'that' or 'that near you', s^e'=hi refers to something visible but further away, glossed 'yonder', and s^e'=hi=dhe refers to something visible but even further off, glossed 'that distant' or 'that yonder'. For the record, at least once (Dorsey 1890:33.4) he does gloss ga'=ge as "those (unseen and scattered)," so I wasn't totally hallucinating on this, as I feared I might have been, to be perfectly honest. However, examples in which ga-things are quite clearly visible and near at hand are also found. I haven't looked into this extensively yet. Incidentally, I think we may have covered some of this ground before. The script - "X about demonstratives," said JEK; "But not really X," said someone else; "Oops," said JEK, face red - that (near at hand and visible) seems familiar. But I think the enlightement, in this case what Rory and the folks he's been working with have been able to explain about s^e=hi and ga - might have been different last time around. I will try to track down the last round. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From vstabler at esu1.org Tue May 25 15:23:25 2004 From: vstabler at esu1.org (Vida Stabler) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:23:25 -0500 Subject: conference details Message-ID: Hi Catherine, would you please send me a guest parking permit. VSS, Box 70, Walthill, Nebraska 68067. VS Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote: > Just a few little practicalities for those of you attending the Siouan and > Caddoan conference: > > 1. Parking. > Parking on campus will be free, but you need a guest permit. I've got a > bunch of these and would be happy to send one to anyone who gives me their > mailing address. (Alternatively you can just pick one up when you get > here. I'll leave some at the motel and dorm front desks, and will have > some in the meeting room.) > > The lot where this permit allows you to park is across campus from the dorm > and conference building. Not too far -- about 2 or 3 city blocks -- but if > walking this far is going to be a big problem for anyone, let me know. > > 2. Maps/locations > I've also got some campus maps -- like the permits, I could send them out > if you want one ahead of time. You can also find a campus map on the web > -- http://www.wsc.edu/about_campus/map/front.htm > > "The Dorm" is Neihardt Hall (named after WSC alumnus John G. Neihardt, of > "Black Elk Speaks" fame). It's the first building on the left as you turn > in at the main entrance to the college (turning into J.G.Lewis Drive off > Main St). > > Paper sessions will be in Humanities Building (3rd building on the right as > you come in that same entrance), room 319. > > For early arrivals ... pre-conference extremely informal party is at 915 > Logan St. (1 block south of campus. Logan is parallel to Main St., one > block east.) 375-4316. Thursday evening 7:00 on. If you show up > before 7 we'll put you to work chopping veggies or something; feel free. > > 3. Housing > Just a nudge... make your reservations soon if you haven't done so. The > motel block is held for us only till the 27th. I don't know of any big > events that should fill up the motels, but in a 3-motel town it doesn't > take much. One wedding could do it. The dorms also fill up with summer > sports camps and such... > > Forgive me, I can't help myself. I ran across this in a novel: > "When April with its sweet showers has pierced the drought of March > to the root, and bathed every vein of earth with that liquid by whose power > the flowers are engendered; when the zephyr, too, with its dulcet breath, > has breathed life into the tender new shoots [...], then, as the poet > Geoffrey Chaucer observed many years ago, folk long to go on pilgrimages. > Only, these days, professional people call them conferences. > The modern conference resembles the pilgrimage of medieval > Christendom in that it allows the participants to indulge themselves in all > the pleasures and diversions of travel while appearing to be austerely bent > on self-improvement. To be sure, there are certain penitential exercises > to be performed -- the presentation of a paper, perhaps, and certainly > listening to the papers of others. But with this excuse you journey to new > and interesting places, meet new and interesting people, and form new and > interesting relationships with them [...] eat, drink and make merry in > their company every evening; and yet, at the end of it all, return home > with an enhanced reputation for seriousness of mind. " > A free WSC pencil to anyone who can identify the author. > (Of course, Siouanists ARE serious-minded, and the "pleasures and > diversions" to be had in Wayne will consist mostly of listening to each > others' papers... :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 26 07:57:13 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 01:57:13 -0600 Subject: More on Noun Classes or Gender in Omaha-Ponca Message-ID: We've mentioned the Omaha-Pocna verbs of position in the past. Corresponding logically to the dhaN, the, and khe articles are idhaN'=...dhe, ithe'=...dhe and ihe'=...dhe. Note ihe', not the expected *ikhe'. Also, there is apparently no *ige'=...dhe corresponding to the get 'the scattered' article. The final inflected part ...dhe is the causative, and forms like ...gidhe for the reflexive possessive or suus also occur. The inflected part makes the verb transitive 'to put (away), to place'. I suppose 'to set', 'to stand', and 'to lay' might be formal alternatives for 'to place'. There are uninflected intransitive forms idhaN', ithe', ihe' that are used sometimes, too. I wish I could say when it was appropriate to use these instead of gdhiN 'to sit', naNz^iN 'to stand', and z^aN 'to lie', but the light has not yet dawned. It occurred to me to look to see if use of these verbs correlated with the noun classes. I'd have said yes on speculation, but I had never really looked. To begin with, this does appear to be the case, though there are ramifications. For example, the noun hiNxpe' 'fine feather' (a body feather, as I think we established once) is usually hiNxpe'=khe (Dorsey 90:148.2, 151.6, 151.7, 155,11-12, 166.14, 170.5), though there are a few cases of hiNxpe'=dhaN glossed, perhaps not coincidentally, as 'plume' (Dorsey 90:614.14, 614.15). It appears that this =khe usage with hiNxpe' affects other contexts where the classification system enters into Omaha-Ponca grammar. For example: Dorsey 90:610.10 hiNxpe' ga'ghe z^aN'= khe= ama feather appearing as he lay EVID QUOTE He lay there looking like a feather. Here the =khe seems to be the evidential. This uses the idiom noun + ga'ghe 'to make' that is used to indicate magically emulating something. Notice that the class of hiNxpe' also probably determines the use of the verb z^aN 'to lie', though this is presumably only the default position of the feather. In this example both the evidential =khe and the verb of placement ihe'=...dhe occur with hiNxpe(=khe). I've thinned the example down somewhat, but it refers to a situation in which an eagle has been killed. It still appears to be there, but it has been magically replaced with a single feather. This is a common story element. Dorsey 90:52.6-9 ... [The eagle is killed. JEK] ... hiNxpe'= wiN udhi'xpadha=bi=khe= ama. ... fine feather one it fell EVID QUOTE [HiNxpe'=wiN 'a fine feather' governs the =khe evidential, though the noun being indefinite =khe is not present with the noun itself. JEK] Dhiza'=bi= ama. He took it QUOTE "Ga'= khe ihe'=dha= ga," a=bi=ama, wa?u' e' dhakha'=bi=egaN. this the put it away IMP he said woman she (he) meaning her [Ga'=khe 'that/this specific one' refers to the hiNxpe=khe, and 'put it away!' uses the khe-corresponding verb ihe'=...dhe. This statement involves a neat cleft in a subordinate clause, too: "it being the woman whom he meant (to put it away)." JEK] ... [Omitting a quarrel over the eagle. JEK] E'gasani=kki, aN'ba=ama, "Ma[N]'s^aN ihe'dhadhe= khe next day when day QUOTE feather you put it away the daN'ba= ga ha," a'=bi= ama. look at it IMP he said QUOTE [Here the hiNxpe'=khe is referred to in a relative clause in which ih'=...dhe is the relative clause verb. Instead of hiNxpe' 'fine feather' we get ma's^aN 'feather', yielding maN's^aN ihe'=dhadhe=khe 'the feather which you put away'. JEK] So, it looks like the conceptual khe-class or khe-gender of hiNxpe' governs the noun definite article and/or relative clause marker =khe, the evidential of a sentence in which the noun is the (informational) theme, and to the selection of a verb of placement which applies to the noun as patient (or theme in the case grammar sense). And this class/gender extends across substitution of a more generic maN's^aN 'feather' for hiNxpe' 'fine feather'. Here's another example, with u'z^iha=khe 'bag'. Dorsey 90:4-6 ... u'z^iha=khe ... ... bag the ... "KkaN=ha', du'=akha u'z^iha a'na[N]xdh ihe'=dha=ga," a'=bi=ama. grandmother VOC this bag hidden put it away he said Here the reference to the bag as u'z^iha=khe (u'z^iha=dhaN is also possible) seems to govern the choice of ihe'=...dhe 'to put away' in the next sentence. I'm a little puzzled here by the du'=akha. It seems most naturally to apply to the bad itself, but I would expect du'=khe in that case. Du'=akha seems to have an animate reference. I see several possibilities: 1) Dorsey heard and reported du'=khe as du'=akha. Bear in mind that =akha is [akh] or [akhA] (A = voiceless a) and =khe is [kh] or [khE]. 2) Du'=akha refers to the grandmother, perhaps along the lines of 'You, hide this away!' 3) Maybe du' forces akha? Or at least =akhe as a variant of =khe? One more causative example. This comes from the story in which the Trickster is caught in a tree while the robber beasts eat his turkeys, the episode following his tricking of the dancing turkeys (or ducks, etc.). Released by the tree too late he comes down and disconsolately licks the spit. Dorsey 90:62.11-12 GaN'kki hi'de khi'= egaN, And so bottom he reached again having s^aN'=xti z^aN'=z^iNga=khe gis^ni'be ihe'=dhe gdhiN' right away stick the he licked his he put it in he sat akh=ama Is^ti'niNkhe=akha PROGR QUOTE I. the Here z^aN'=z^iNga=khe governs ihe'=dhe, or, rather z^aN'=z^iNga governs =khe and ihe'=...dhe. In the same way Is^ti'niNkhe governs =akha and the =akha progressive marker. These are nt the only examples of =khe class membership governing evidentials and verbs of placement as well as articles, but they are probably more than enough. I haven't yet noticed any clashes, e.g., =khe nouns governing something other than ihe'=...dhe or non-khe-nouns governing ihe'=...dhe. I believe I did see animate nouns used with idhaN'=...dhe. I also have a couple of examples of plain ihe' 'to be in a position'. The first is from the Twins Cycle and occurs as their father (the Sun, think) comes home to discover they have disobeyed him and brought home the crying lizards. These lizards cry out when you step on their tails, and he happens to drop the deer he's killed on the lot of them, which clues him in immediately. Dorsey 90:214.16-15 tti=z^e'be=the=di uga'xpadhe= kki=z^i, door the at he threw it down when (as it may be) a'gaspa'=bi=egaN, it pressing having wa'huttaN ihe'= ama crying about it they were in a line QUOTE (Their father) throwing (the deer) down at the door, as it may be, having (thus) pressed upon (the tails of the lizards), they were crying out at this in a line (or all together as a group). The lizards are nowhere referenced nominally in this sentence, and earlier references are in terms of nouns plus the animate article, e.g., iN'j^e=wasni'be=ama 'the face-lickers' or nouns only wagdhi's^ka hi'=duba 'four-legged reptitles' or wana[N]'gdhe 'pet(s)'. Another example involves the Orphan, elegantly costumed, carrying a club that has birds (or their skins?) tied to it. Dorsey 90:593.13-14 Z^aN=we'thiN=khe ihe'=dhe= naN= bi=dhaN=di, wood striker the he laid down usually the at waz^iN'ga=akha gahutt(aN) ihe'=naN= bi=ama. bird the crying out from being hit lay usually QUOTE "Generally, when (for the period?) he laid down his club, the birds (tied to it) would lie there crying out." ... or "would cry out as it lay there." I suppose the idea is that the skins tied to the club to ornament it are magically alive. It's not clear here if the second positional ihe' is governed by z^aN=we'thiN=khe 'the club' or by the conceptual group of waz^iN'ga, though the latter have the =akha article in the sentence as cited, and the club is laid down in the first clause with ihe'=...dhe, so that it would be a better parallel if it was the thing lying. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 26 19:57:07 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:57:07 -0600 Subject: 15.1657, FYI: "Slashed C"; .... (from LinguistList) (fwd) Message-ID: A number of interested parties won't see this on the LinguistList itself. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:27:19 -0000 From: LINGUIST List To: LINGUIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: 15.1657, FYI: "Slashed C"; Language May 2004 Book Notice List -------------------------------- Message 1 ------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:28:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Deborah Anderson Subject: Feedback Needed on "Slashed C" and Unicode Feedback is requested from linguists regarding the encoding of LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE as a phonetic symbol (Unicode Public Review Issue #35). Description: At the February 2004 meeting of the Unicode Technical Committee, a proposal was considered to encode the phonetic symbol LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE. Some reservation was expressed on the part of some committee members, however, due to potential legacy encoding issues. A decision was made to give tentative approval of this character, but to prepare a public review issue to elicit feedback on the pros and cons of encoding this character. The document, written by Peter Constable, is located at: http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-35.pdf . Please send feedback via the online form: http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html or you can send an email message to me at dwanders at socrates.berkeley.edu for forwarding. Deadline for comments **8 June 2004**. This is part of an effort to solicit feedback from users of the Slashed C. If you have questions, please contact the proposal author, Peter Constable (petercon at microsoft.com) or Deborah Anderson (dwanders at socrates.berkeley.edu). Deborah Anderson Researcher, Dept. of Linguistics UC Berkeley Email: dwanders at socrates.berkeley.edu or dwanders at pacbell.net From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed May 26 23:57:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:57:42 -0600 Subject: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 25 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I will try to track down the last round. http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1331 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1435 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1526 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1706 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R747 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R835 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R1487 It looks like we were mostly concerned with frequencies of different demonstratives this go round, with some useful stuff on Lakota in this respect from Connie. For this I went to the LinguistList search tool for the Siouan List: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S1=siouan Searching on combinations of yonder, Demonstrative, Dorsey, and footnote proved useful. This tool is extremely useful, by the way. Incidentally, even if you don't subscribe to the LinguistList, you might want to consider going to http://www.linguistlist.org and donating. They are in their annual funds drive. I for one am thankful for their terrific archiving service. (I don't think their online donation tool is secured with SSL (https), so I always send my donation by regular mail.) From rankin at ku.edu Thu May 27 14:25:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:25:50 -0500 Subject: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote Message-ID: Did I distribute my 3 or so page handout on Siouan demonstrative cognate sets? I've sent it so several people, I think, but can't remember whom. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Dorsey Demonstrative Footnote > On Tue, 25 May 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > > I will try to track down the last round. > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1331 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1435 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1526 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&D=0&P=1706 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R747 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R835 > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=siouan&P=R1487 > > It looks like we were mostly concerned with frequencies of different > demonstratives this go round, with some useful stuff on Lakota in this > respect from Connie. > > For this I went to the LinguistList search tool for the Siouan List: > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S1=siouan > > Searching on combinations of yonder, Demonstrative, Dorsey, and footnote > proved useful. > > This tool is extremely useful, by the way. > > Incidentally, even if you don't subscribe to the LinguistList, you might > want to consider going to http://www.linguistlist.org and donating. They > are in their annual funds drive. I for one am thankful for their terrific > archiving service. (I don't think their online donation tool is secured > with SSL (https), so I always send my donation by regular mail.) > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu May 27 23:42:02 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 18:42:02 -0500 Subject: More on Noun Classes or Gender in Omaha-Ponca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > "KkaN=ha', du'=akha u'z^iha a'na[N]xdh ihe'=dha=ga," a'=bi=ama. > grandmother VOC this bag hidden put it away he said [...] > I'm a little puzzled here by the du'=akha. It seems most naturally to > apply to the bad itself, but I would expect du'=khe in that case. > Du'=akha seems to have an animate reference. I see several possibilities: > > 1) Dorsey heard and reported du'=khe as du'=akha. Bear in mind that =akha > is [akh] or [akhA] (A = voiceless a) and =khe is [kh] or [khE]. > > 2) Du'=akha refers to the grandmother, perhaps along the lines of 'You, > hide this away!' > > 3) Maybe du' forces akha? Or at least =akhe as a variant of =khe? I'd suggest a fourth possibility. I don't think that akha' necessarily has animate reference. We've previously observed the passage in which Is^ti'dhiNkhe tricks Coyote into fishing with his tail through a hole in the ice, in which the ice akha' froze. Akha' seems to be used to focus the listener's attention on an entity. Usually that entity is animate, and is usually the active agent of the verb, but we seem to have exceptions both to animacy and to agentivity. I'm not sure if we ever have exceptions to focus or not. In this example though, I think the point of akha in the phrase "du'=akha u'z^iha" is transparently to focus the grandmother's attention on "this here bag". I'm pretty sure I have run akha' used for inanimate things like pens by the speakers, and that they have found it acceptable. I'll try to check again sometime to make sure. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri May 28 16:03:49 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:03:49 -0600 Subject: More on Noun Classes or Gender in Omaha-Ponca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 May 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > John wrote: > > "KkaN=ha', du'=akha u'z^iha a'na[N]xdh ihe'=dha=ga," a'=bi=ama. > > grandmother VOC this bag hidden put it away he said > > > I'm a little puzzled here by the du'=akha. It seems most naturally > > to apply to the bad itself, but I would expect du'=khe in that case. > > Du'=akha seems to have an animate reference. ... > I'd suggest a fourth possibility. I don't think that > akha' necessarily has animate reference. We've previously > observed the passage in which Is^ti'dhiNkhe tricks Coyote > into fishing with his tail through a hole in the ice, in > which the ice akha' froze. Akha' seems to be used to focus > the listener's attention on an entity. Usually that entity > is animate, and is usually the active agent of the verb, > but we seem to have exceptions both to animacy and to > agentivity. ... That would be another problem - the lack of agency - because the bag is clearly the object here. But I'm relieved that there are other exceptions. From jkyle at ku.edu Sat May 29 16:03:31 2004 From: jkyle at ku.edu (Kyle, John H) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:03:31 -0500 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota Message-ID: While reviewing the data on lexical vs. syntactic compounds in Dakota I came across a form which has me scratching my head. Lexical compounds are formed by the concatenation of roots and contain one stressed syllable (peninitial). Syntactic compounds concatenate 'words', each with their own stress (the second stressed syllable is reduced) One of the classic examples given to show the difference between the two types of compounds is: c^he'Ga zi' (yellow kettle)(syntactic compound) c^hexzi' (brass kettle) (lexical compound) In the L compound, the c# root (c^ex or c^eG) directly attaches to zi. In the S compound the root undergoes stem formation (epenthetic final vowel and initial stress) before concatenating. My question concerns the following classic example: s^ka'l o ma'ni (he goes playing about) (syntactic compound)and s^kal o' mani (he goes about in order to play) (lexical compound) What is the nature and behavior of s^kal ? Why doesn't it appear as s^ka'la in the syntactic compound. Is it considered a C# root? And does anyone have examples of its use in other constructions? Thanks. John Kyle jkyle at ku.edu From rankin at ku.edu Sat May 29 17:00:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:00:04 -0500 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota Message-ID: The verb is /ska'ta/ and it is an "ablauting" verb (Kaw cognate /ska'je/). That makes it a "C# root" in Dakotan. The -t > -l before the boundary. Beyond that, I can't account for its behavior. Bob > s^ka'l o ma'ni (he goes playing about) (syntactic compound)and > s^kal o' mani (he goes about in order to play) (lexical compound) > What is the nature and behavior of s^kal ? Why doesn't it appear as > s^ka'la in the syntactic compound. Is it considered a C# root? And > does anyone have examples of its use in other constructions? Thanks. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat May 29 18:00:47 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:00:47 -0600 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 May 2004, Kyle, John H wrote: > While reviewing the data on lexical vs. syntactic compounds in Dakota I > came across a form which has me scratching my head. Lexical compounds > are formed by the concatenation of roots and contain one stressed > syllable (peninitial). Syntactic compounds concatenate 'words', each > with their own stress (the second stressed syllable is reduced) One of > the classic examples given to show the difference between the two types > of compounds is: > > c^he'Ga zi' (yellow kettle)(syntactic compound) > c^hexzi' (brass kettle) (lexical compound) > > In the L compound, the c# root (c^ex or c^eG) directly attaches to zi. > In the S compound the root undergoes stem formation (epenthetic final > vowel and initial stress) before concatenating. My question concerns > the following classic example: > > s^ka'l o ma'ni (he goes playing about) (syntactic compound)and > s^kal o' mani (he goes about in order to play) (lexical compound) > > What is the nature and behavior of s^kal ? Why doesn't it appear as > s^ka'la in the syntactic compound. Is it considered a C# root? And > does anyone have examples of its use in other constructions? Thanks. Well, the underlying stem is s^ka't# right? As a non-Dakotanist I am helped here by this being a Mississippi Valley-wide set, s^ka'ta being comparable to OP s^ka'de. So the problem is that one expects a full word form of s^ka'ta in a syntactic compound? You mentioned that Santee has c^eg^azi (accent?) for 'brass kettle'. I see that Riggs does give c^he'g^aska for 'tin kettle'. Maybe exceptions occur in the opposite direction, too, with less than full word forms in some syntactic compounds. In that case, the critical factor in distinguishing the two kinds of compound is the accentuation. I always think of C-final forms in Dakotan as being in "subordinate" or compounding form, at least in Teton and Santee. I think that with certain morphemes, e.g., =lu ~ =l or =ka ~ =c^a ~ =l, Dakotan is perfectly capable of deleting an organic final vowel to achieve this C-final "subordinate" form, but perhaps historically the opposition comes about through the alternation of "complete" C-final forms and "independent" forms in which a C-final root has been rendered "independent" by adding a suffix or enclitic. This is implicit in calling -a or -A "stem forming." In some non-Siouan languages this sort of suffix is called an absolute marker when it occurs with nouns. (Not to be confused with absolutive as used in characterizing ergative case systems.) Absolutive markers are not always final vowels added to C-final stems, of course, but often there are some nouns that require absolutive markers and some that don't. This sort of things is pretty common in Uto-Aztecan, and it also occurs in Caddoan, though it is not restricted to North America. For Uta-Aztecan, Langacker (Overview of Uto-Aztecan Grammar, 77): "Absolutive suffixes are one of the more distinctive and characteristic features of UA grammar. An absolutive suffix, in UA terms, is an ending with no apparent semantic value that appears on nouns in citation forms but may drop when a noun is subjected to various morphological processes, such as affixation, compounding, or reduplication. The P-UA absolutive suffix was *-t, deriving ultimately from *t 'be' ... [it] was retained before the accusative *-a, and possibly before the plural *-m, but lost when any other morphological elements were attached." For Caddoan, Parks (Pawnee Grammar, p. 97): "An absolutive suffix -u occurs with the majority of noun stems when they stand independently, i.e., when they are not incorporated or otherwise in composition with a following stem or suffix. This elements seems to serve no other purpose than classifying the noun as a noun and rendering it absolute." Or, Rood (Wichita Grammar, p. 7): "-?a. This suffix occurs on the citation form of a majority of nouns and may even be part of other suffixes listed below. Although its meaning seems to be 'nominalized', it is not used productively to form new nouns. ... Occasionally two nouns are differentiated solely by the presence or absence of the suffix, but the suffixed form should not be taken as a derivative of the non-suffixed form." I mention this last because the examples show that simple nouns occur without the absolutive, e.g., he:c 'fat', but he:c?a 'fire'. (Hmm. Reminds me of PS *hpet 'fire'!) Of course, absolute (or absolutive) markers are characteristic of nouns, not verbs, but in Dakotan and other Siouan languages ablaut vowels, and the intimately related stem-formant vowels, and so, Dakotan C-final stems, are at least as prominent an issue with verbs as with nouns, and, of course, John's conundrum was posed in connection with verbs. However, citation forms of verbs are often effectively verbal nouns or adjectives, and subordinate incorporated verbs are generally of the same character. In addition, citation forms of nouns, as the Uto-Aztecna case shows, may be effectively predicative forms. So, the boundary between the two classes is somewhat murky. From rwd0002 at unt.edu Sun May 30 04:10:20 2004 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:10:20 -0500 Subject: Lexical and syntactic compounding in Dakota In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Souanists: Regarding the distinction between lexical and syntactic compounds, and the shka'l oma'ni, shkalo'mani problem, I wrote a paper on Serial Verbs in Lakota, which addresses this problem. This will be published in a volume entitled Serial Verb constructions edited by Aikhenvald and Dixon, to appear sometime in the end of 2004, beginning 2005. Willem de Reuse From rankin at ku.edu Sun May 30 14:19:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: different incorporations. Message-ID: I think it's often impossible to distinguish so-called syntactic from lexical incorporation in Siouan because, for many verbs, the two processes give homophonous results. Skata/$kata does have two forms, distinguished by accent, but the fact that both have phonological truncation strongly suggests that there is not a hard-and-fast line between the two types of incorporation, and, that, in fact, what we have is a continuum between what were earlier and later lexicalizations of particular compounds. Given the lexeme-by-lexeme nature of compound formation, this would not be surprising. You gonna give us a preview of your solution, Wim? :-) Bob